Amiga.org
The "Not Quite Amiga but still computer related category" => Alternative Operating Systems => Topic started by: trekiej on November 28, 2007, 07:13:21 PM
-
I maybe getting Vista for Christmas.
For those who has used it, what do you think of it?
Technically what is wrong with it? Please just do not say it sucks.
Thanks.
:-D
Edit: 17:05 ***********
I guess that there are as many opinions as there are hardware manufacturers.
:-D
-
I bought a laptop last year with XP with an update to Vista which came out later. I installed Vista and frankly it sucked. I went back to XP in less than two weeks.
Why?
It was noticably slower than XP.
It continously bugged me with all kind of requestors.
It wasn't compatible with all software I have (Magix Music maker; I know sucky program but I just wanted to try it).
-
@flashlab
What were these requesters?
Is it slower on dual core as well?
Thanks.
-
I haven't used it but I was an early adopter of Windows XP. I hated it it was terrible so bad I didn't use that brand new PC or any PC for that matter for like two years then one day I loaded service pack two on it and alias it worked pretty well and I still use that computer today. I suspect Vista will be the same. I bought a Mac in 2003 Its updated with the latest os 10.5 it runs better than when I bought it too however I've used it a ton during all my years of ownership. Vista just isn't finished from what I see and Microsuck has to release it to maintain its relevance to maintain its monopoly. But believe me too much is riding on it to not work eventually. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
I know there is a user here who says there is nothing wrong with Vista, but sorry to say, it just plain blows :P.
But I will back it up with reasons why. Put it this way, vista is the Windows Millenium. Lets hope they release another Windows OS to replace Vista.
I tried Vista on a dual core 3800+ AMD cpu, 2gb dual channel ram, and Sli'd Geforce 7600 gt video cards... With those specs, Vista is "usable" not fast, but usable.... After playing a single game of quake 4, all of the 2gb was nearly filled of the ram.
Another thing I disliked was the fact that when I wanted to simply find one thing on Vista, it seemed like you had to click literally through tons of options before it brought you to it, whereas on XP, you click Start/Settings/Control Panel.
You do not get a performance gain if you install Vista. Heck, i use the 32-bit version of windows xp pro on my dual core 4200+ setup. Reason why 64 bit is not on here because it makes 0 difference when I run and play my games. Maybe for some, but the ones I care to play, it made the same exact FPS.
To me, XP is definately one to stick with and use. If im forced out of XP, then im jumping right in to Ubuntu Linux, no questions asked. :-)
-
My laptop is dual core; so yes it's slower the XP on that too.
The requestors are of the "Are you sure you want to...?" kind and pop up everywhere.
I'll stick with XP for some years. In the future you can't ignore Vista probably because software will demand Vista or DirectX 10 I guess.
Vista really has gotten me interested in Macs to be honest: I'm considering selling my laptop to buy a MacBook Pro.
-
Thanks to all.
-
Many people complain that Windows Vista is so bad, it does this, does not to that, ect...
Well, I have been using it for about three or four months now and I will not lie, at first I could not stand it. But after playing with it for a while and figuring things out I love it. I have an HP Pavillion with Intel Celeron 2.93 GHz, 766 megs of memory and two 40 gig hard drives. I will admit that on this system Vista does not fly but you know what, it works. I am just so tired of hearing so many people saying they dislike vista based on a 1 or 2 week trial without really getting into it. I have no regrets at all. Also, I am a proud owner of an Amiga 2000T with OS 3.9. I don't use my real Amiga too much but I do use the latest version of WinUAE of the PC mentioned above and again, no problems at all.
-
@Dmaster
Isn't there ways to turn off features you do not want to speed up the os?
-
@ DMaster
Well, it bugs me that some people won't let others have their opinion without saying it tires them.
I have paid for the Vista upgrade and I don't like it; I'm not paying to not like it, ok? Am I to work with an OS I don't like to let it grow on me so that I may love in the future? That's some twisted thinking there...
I have a pretty powerfull laptop; it can run Vista with all bells and whistles in Aero. If you want eye candy; I was more impressed with the Ubuntu live cd I tried and that was free.
-
Yes there is. You can have a Windows Classic desktop if you want. Somehow the icons looked ugly though (big blocks around them like WB3.0/1 ;-))but you can probably fix that too.
-
I installed vista awhile back and it's fine with me. It boots a lot faster than XP did on that machine. I turned off Aero and switched to classic view, which is what I do on XP anyway. It wasn't that Aero was bogging the machine, it was just ugly as hell and kind of pointless.
Control panes and stuff are changed around, but thats no big deal, just switch to classic view on those as well if you want. All my programs run just fine on Vista save for a few poorly written ones, and to get those to install I simply kicked off a CLI with system priv and ran the installer for the app and it worked just fine.
Over all a very positive experience. It is kind of pointless to go out and buy a Vista upgrade though. Just wait until you get a new machine that comes with it.
-
The speed difference between Vista and XP is noticeable, with XP being considerably faster, and the gap is about to widen even more: Early in 2008, Microsoft is planning to release Service Pack 3 for XP, and I have heard that SP3 will, for example, make XP running MS Word 10% faster than XP with Service Pack 2, widening the speed gap considerably. (I'm not sure what the speed comparison would be when running Amiga emulations.)
Vista may or may not be a complete turkey as some claim--I suspect it will take a couple of service packs to know for sure--but there seems to be no compelling reason to upgrade to Vista on an existing computer unless you are both (1) a hard-core gamer who frequently upgrades or a high-end graphics user and (2) you have a Direct X-10 compatible graphics card (or cards) in your system. Getting a new computer with Vista would seem okay, as long as you don't get Vista Home Basic and get either Home Premium or Ultimate.
In issuing Service Pack 3 for XP, Microsoft is clearly on the defensive. It's nice to see them at least somewhat on the defensive for a change.
-
Hi,
I am an IT for many years with many experiences in windows operating system.
I usually install the latest windows version just as it is available but for the first time it's different.
I tried some alpha & beta versions of Vista (longhorn) and i installed the retail version for months, I had many problems.
First my hardware configuration: Pentium 4 3.4Ghz, 2GB dual channel DDR400, Nvidia 7900GS , 200Gb HDD, gigabit ethernet., Audigy 2. (Dual boot XP-Vista)
Not the latest available hardware but a reasonable machine.
I have the following problems:
- The display speed: I turned off themes to keep system responsive.
- many bugs:
- The time used to copy files is 3 or 4 times longer than with the same files on the same machine under XP
- Turned off those boxes who want the administrator password nearly each mouse click.
- Windows update: some updates do not install for weeks without any reason.
- I have a bluetooth adapter: works under XP , worked under vista without any driver but for months each time I start the computer Vista demands the driver 4 or 5 times and do not found anyone suitable, Why ??...
- many others ...
But no compatibility problems (software, even CD emulators with fake drives) ...
I do not think that Vista have a real interest now maybe in 1 or 2 years...
I think that the first service pack will solve many problems but for now, not very useable...
-
I bought a new Dell Desktop with 3GB Ram and Dual Core 2.13GHz and GeForce 8600GT. It came with WVP and I decideed to try it and see. I bought about 3 months ago and I still have Vista on it. It has a smoother feel that I prefer over XPs herky jerky. I havent had any games not work on it or productivity software. The way Vista handles ram is different than XP so haveing it all 'full' is not an error or bug. So far so good. If I went back I would use TinyXP anyway.
-
I used Vista Ultimate for about 3 months and did find it to be slower than XP.
The problem is that Vista isn't compatible with some software.
Example 1: I was updating anti-virus software for a brokerage company which went very well using AVG. The problem came about when an employee had purchased a new laptop with Vista on it and was trying to run a $35,000.00 software package and it just kept crashing. i spent some time looking over his sytem and it just wasn't compatible.
Example 2: I had intended to run Vista Business on the workstations at work (no luck). The network is running Server 2003 with roaming profiles and workstations are running XP Pro SP2. The problem with running Vista and roaming profiles is that the folder structure has changed between XP and Vista which causes some headaches. I worked on this issue for 4 days and couldn't resolve the problem since the folder redirection doesn't seem to work properly.
Example 3: My girlfriend had purchased a new laptop with Vista home premium which seemed to work just fine until we wanted to use a wireless connection the signal kept dropping. The problem happened no matter how the connection was configured or what wireless network we used.
Example 4: We have a Sonicwall 2040pro at work and Vista isn't compatible with the VPN client (it might be now).
Example 5: Vista also handles sound differently than XP does, I have a SB Audigy 2ZS which works great under XP but using Vista I get pops and snaps while playing music, movies, or games.
Example 6: Vista also has/had a huge problem with Nvidia current production video cards. The drivers available didn't work very well with the 7800 or 8800 series cards especially in SLI mode.
I would say overall Vista isn't horrible it just needs polishing and finishing. I think Microsoft should have tested Vista longer and gave us more of a finished product. I also think that the hardware vendors should be frowned upon too since alot of the issues with Vista are due to driver problems.
If I remember right when XP hit the shelves there were alot of problems with it as well including driver issues and a bunch of other problems.
I personally still like using XP over Vista so that is what I use, I do like the sidebar gadgets so I download a program called Vista Transformation Pack and installed it which gives alot of the same look and feel of Vista but using XP kernel.
-
I tried it (ultimate - msdn via work) on my home box ... Core 2 Duo 6600 with 2gb, modern ATI card (not a gaming one)... simply put ... it was slow... decision to get back to XP was simple - since then also replaced an XP laptop by a Macbook Pro - and happy since :-)
ta
Tom UK
PS: yes this is posted from my sofa-surfing laptop w2k 450Mmhz dell.... good enough for this
-
I'm using Windows Vista Ultimate 64 Bit since August this year. I ran into some problems with drivers for my 8800 GTX and X-FI card and programs. Most of time Vista works very well on my Core 2 Quad 6600 Processor with 4 GB of RAM. Okay sometimes Vista isn't solid as a rock or fast, but I think the OS will be improved over the years.
-
Check out this article:
Windows XP Outshines Vista in Benchmark Testing (http://www.news.com/Windows-XP-outshines-Vista-in-benchmarking-test/2100-1016_3-6220201.html?tag=item)
Unless you want to play bleeding edge games that require DirectX 10 and Vista, I would suggest sticking to XP for a while longer. Just my $0.02 worth.
-
amiga1260 wrote:
I'm using Windows Vista Ultimate 64 Bit since August this year. I ran into some problems with drivers for my 8800 GTX and X-FI card and programs. Most of time Vista works very well on my Core 2 Quad 6600 Processor with 4 GB of RAM. Okay sometimes Vista isn't solid as a rock or fast, but I think the OS will be improved over the years.
Yes, it is just another in the long line of bug ridden, bloated, slow, unfinished OSes that have come from MS. Nothing wrong with that, the world has been convinced that this is normal and acceptable. :lol:
Edit: Is WinXP64bit dead now that Vista is out, or will it be updated for a long time to come? I bought it for my Son's PC that we built together and was intended primarily for games he wanted to play that his friends already owned. We had driver problems, so I had to buy the 32bit version as well and the 64bit version is sitting unused at the moment. I can't even put it on my MacMini as it is not supposed to work there.
-
hi,
i use vista and now it's been updated and i've turned off the requesters, i love it, it's fine to use,i still remember xp really blowed when it was new, but the updates do work, vista is the future so learn to use it now and just watch it get better and better.
best regards, Justin
-
@ JuvUK
Thats a very positive way to look at it. I'm tired of companies releasing somewhat working products though makes me want to shun it all. I really wish I was as positive as you.
-
Many issues such as the mentioned speed issues, will be address in SP1. That should be available early next year. Which from the reviews I have read of the Beta SP1 are true. Faster starting, copying, etc.
The requesters are there for security to basically make the user aware of the actions they have initiated, say in an program install. Doesn't bother me. I was using teatimer that comes with Spybot Search & Destroy to monitor registry changes. It prompts you for each registry change. I just didn't like the sneaky {bleep} that try to silently install.
I'm running Vista Ultimate on an AMD 5600+, 2 GB 800MHz memory, M2N32-SLI Deluxe motherboard and a HIS Radeon 2600XT ICEQ graphics card. Vista runs quite nice. It feels like a robust version of XP with a SP2 like service pack added on. It doesn't fall down and BSOD like XP. Recovers nicely and is better with program errors. Even tries to find solutions to the problems.
Really it is not a run out and get upgrade with everything that MS cut out of the features list. You'll get it with a new computer. Try it for a few weeks. The only issues I've had are not being able to use 10 year old software or hardware.
Oh, and you can turn a number of features off. You don't have to use the Aero theme, or the User Account Control (which will keep the permission requesters from poping up)
Basically, MS listened and put a bit of security in to Vista.
P.S. I'm running the 64 bit version.
-
I tried some alpha & beta versions of Vista (longhorn) and i installed the retail version for months, I had many problems.
I tried those also and they sucked big time. The speed seemed reasonably okay on my old computer (Athlon 2600+). Though I couldn't get much of the software I had to run and it crashed alot.
The instal I have now is far better and I'm looking forward to the improvement that SP1 will bring.
-
Just use XP Pro or XP Pro 64 if you have a 64 bit prosessor. Don't waste your time on Vista as you'll only be lagged by loading times.
-
Ive stuck it on my pc (Ultimate AGAIN!) to play with. now under xp games like crysis played fine! under vista loading times are longer, the game is so slow and the sound is skipping like made its not playable.
users account control is annoying as it pops up every time you need to do something! turning it off also means that you get pop ups every few mins and reboots telling you that its off and needs turning back on.
It looks nice areo glass is good, but finding programs in the new start menu is hardwork and its annoying.
-
i'm running ultimate on an e6700 clocked to 3.5ghz with 4gb ram and a geforce 8800 gtx ultra and everything i've thrown at it including crisis flies, plus dx10 stuff looks sooo much better, and just turn the user account thing off. :o)
-
That is probably the worst Christmas gift that you could get.
-
Argo wrote:
It feels like a robust version of XP with a SP2 like service pack added on. It doesn't fall down and BSOD like XP.
How did you manage to get a bluescreen on XP? And how did you manage to get it to feel anything but robust? :)
I have actually never gotten a BSOD on my XP machine. And some other minor problems I have had are all due to bad apps.
Vista might be more robust in the way that it "never" hangs, or whatever, but it is still the worst Windows version I have confronted. Even ME was better, methinks.. Yes, it does hang and crash often, but at least it doesnt bug you all the time with mind-numbingly stupid things, like "An application is about to start, are you sure you want to allow it to continue?".
:)
-
lol just turn the notifications off! it really is that easy, honest
-
In previous versions of windows, people {bleep}ed about the lack of security while they mindlessly droned on logged in under their administrator account. Microsoft comes up with a new security model in windows and guess what? People {bleep} about it.
Half the time when I have to install an app on my mac I get to type in a password. When i change prefs, password. On the CLI, I often have to run sudo, all the time. Nobody {bleep}es about that. Nobody {bleep}es about having to type in the password on Ubuntu.
Got an app on Vista that pops up the UAC and you are tired of that, just right click and select a checkbox, blam, no more having to put in that password.
-
Argo wrote:
Many issues such as the mentioned speed issues, will be address in SP1. That should be available early next year. Which from the reviews I have read of the Beta SP1 are true. Faster starting, copying, etc.
http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/13670
"The benchmarking company goes on to say that Vista is now 'more than two times slower than the most current builds of its older sibling.' Since it also claims Service Pack 1 for Vista won't bring any performance enhancements, those results definitely don't bode well for Microsoft's newest operating system."
Yeah, it's possibly biased but still... I am not sure exactly what those "performance enhancing" hotfixes did, but I am not sure they were all that significant? People were hot on them for a while but now it's back to a general "Vista sucks" blah blah blah bit.
Also, I've not done a whole lot of searching yet, but Vista 32-bit can't be upgraded to 64-bit? You need to reinstall the OS? Anyone know if that's true? Wifey wants to use all 4 GB of her RAM (currently only 3 GB is accessible due to a 768 MB video card and other random things) and was contemplating an upgrade until she realized going from 32-bit Vista to 64-bit Vista would apparently entail a format and reinstall.
Vista's UAC is horrific, first thing we turn off on new Vista laptops here at work. Both Linux and OS X have ways to deal with this stuff and both are far more elegant. All Vista does is further train users to just click click click to get rid of annoying pop-up boxes or to turn off that "feature" altogether (as we do in our IT department).
Vista does auto-restart some stuff when it crashes, and that's nice. But wife has been able to get it to completely freeze the system while just browsing the web or playing a game, so...
For my place of work, Vista is not compatible with software and hardware required for interfacing with certain government agencies. Thank god we could get that stuff running with VMWare on the Vista machines, else we'd have had to wipe all the Vista machines and reinstall WinXP. For a consumer, it's an annoyance at not being able to use an old piece of hardware from 10 years ago, but in business sometimes this is essential. Especially if you are forced to deal with certain government agencies that require that hardware. It's not like we can just deal with another random country or government agency, hehe.
Now that I read your post again, I think I'm going to go uninstall Teatimer from my XP system. It pops up all the damn time and I honestly have no idea if I should be allowing certain arcane registry entries. Updating Quicktime required changing a registry startup key and after the updater was done, it changed it again. No reboot needed. Makes no sense. How am I supposed to know that is "valid" versus a trojan or malware? You shouldn't have to be an MCSE to interpret this information. That's just a bad implementation of "security" and I guess it's necessitated by the windows software model if both UAC and a 3rd party program end up doing the same thing with useless information. Ah well.
I'll stop rambling now.
-
koaftder wrote:
In previous versions of windows, people {bleep}ed about the lack of security while they mindlessly droned on logged in under their administrator account. Microsoft comes up with a new security model in windows and guess what? People {bleep} about it.
Half the time when I have to install an app on my mac I get to type in a password. When i change prefs, password. On the CLI, I often have to run sudo, all the time. Nobody {bleep}es about that. Nobody {bleep}es about having to type in the password on Ubuntu.
Got an app on Vista that pops up the UAC and you are tired of that, just right click and select a checkbox, blam, no more having to put in that password.
Heh, so your app on Vista is just like the Keychain on OS X?
Look at the security model in relation to users. When you sudo at a linux command line, guess what, YOU ARE NOT AN AVERAGE USER. No, really, you aren't. If you're chmod'ing stuff and sudo'ing, casual security DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU. STOP HERE AND IGNORE THE CONVERSATION. Not being mean, but anyone using a CLI *nix already "gets it" in regard to security models for that type of operating system. And they have fewer trojans/malware to deal with than on Windows. Most exploits are people remotely breaking into things like a web server or php module, not from a *nix user running a program that's really a trojan.
Use both Vista and OS X for a week and you should find that you are prompted more for your password on Vista than on OS X. Some programs, when installing (or even LAUNCHING) will prompt you THREE TIMES for a UAC confirmation. On a Mac, once, if that? This isn't anecdotal on my part, either, a google search should show up the same comparisons and complaints.
It isn't the act of asking for user intervention that is bad, it is the act of desensitizing the user to the value of that information. If your computing experience is interrupted 3 to 5 times while trying to install or load programs, are you going to keep scrutinizing every UAC prompt? It's the OS who cried wolf. It trains people to "make the box go away" so they can use their computers.
You can say, "well too bad, they should know better, that's there for their protection" and you wouldn't be wrong. But that's the same thing for telling people to not run as Administrator and make separate accounts, to be careful what they download and open in email, etc.
If UAC provided simple-to-understand information and with less frequency, people (and IT security experts, if you read the IT press at all) would be more apt to care about the warnings. As it is now, it is pretty much worthless for security. But it's great at annoying the crap out of people.
OS X, in comparison, DOES ask for your password from time to time. But not ALL the time. And typically only when you're installing programs that access the nuts and bolts, like if you wanted to run iDefrag or Disk Utility, that kinda stuff. Not when you're installing a @#% shareware game.
Boo Vista! Yay beer!
-
I might consider trying windows Vista one day.. but not the Premium Edition, no...
.. they'd have to bring out a Toilet Paper Edition first before I'd use it for anything specifically.
-
I have to ask these questions because I suspect that the people complaining the most about Vista didn't really give it a fair chance.. The product is more than six months old, and if you had driver issues (with sound, video whatever), chances are those issues aren't there anymore.
Vista does take advantage of a high end graphics card. If you have an older system you just won't see the 3D translucent windows.. Otherwise it's not there..
How many people who said the system was slower were referring to pop-up windows, and did you just try turning off UAC (User Account Control) from the individual USERS control panel preferences? That would make you no less secure than Windows XP.. For those complaining about file copies taking longer than XP, that was true until they released a hotfix that was on Windows Update.. That's no worse than some of the Mac OSX 10.5 bugs of the same type.
Vista does have a very different memory modeling scenario than XP, and can take advantage of larger equipped machines.
I think we'll see SP1 of Vista about the same time we see XP service pack three.. What you miss with XP is accelerated WPF applications, which quite a few are beginning to show up, and I think the tables will turn on all of this for users..
This very much reminds me of the situation with Windows 2000 adoption many years ago, when they had to offer new drivers for the first NON-DOS version of Windows and NT replaced Windows 98/ME.. The manufacturers of third parties took months even after release to become compliant. There was much complaining going on then too.. But the reality of this is these 3rd parties had nearly two years to come onboard. Microsoft offered plenty of betas and didn't just spring this on them over night..
-
>Technically what is wrong with it? Please just do not say it >sucks.
>Thanks.
>
>Edit: 17:05 ***********
>I guess that there are as many opinions as there are hardware >manufacturers.
If you are asking from hardware point of view, it would depend on the hardware you install Vista, XP or any other OS on. Why settle for opinions, when you can benchmark the hardware I/O for yourself. Here's results I got with running a peripheral simulation task that uses I/O transfers more than non I/O 80x86 instructions (mainly LPT port):
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320189144289
Compaq Armada 1120 w/16MB running Windows 3.11: 1.2MB/second
Toshiba 460CDT w/32MB running Windows 3.11: 1.5MB/second
Toshiba 460CDT w/32MB running Win98SE: 1.1MB/second
Tecra 8000-366Mhz w/128MB running Windows 3.11: 1MB/second
Tecra 8000-366Mhz w/128MB running Windows 98SE: 960KB/second
Tecra 8000-366Mhz w/128MB running Windows XP: 930KB/second
Tecra 8000-366Mhz w/128MB running Vista (can't install it-- not enough memory-- probably does not support 366Mhz)
HP Ze1000 1.3Ghz w/512MB running WinXP: 560KB/second
The more software layers/drivers/protection you put on top of the hardware, the worse the performance.
-
By "more I/O transfers", I meant spends more time in I/O transfers than in executing non-I/O 80x86 instructions. So, it won't make a difference whether you are running dual-core or 1000-core processor if the I/O bus is a bottleneck, the Toshiba 460CDT w/Win3.11 will kill it in performance. And on the same hardware running various OSes, the software layers/drivers/protection will make the difference in performance.
-
I bought a new spanking Vista-system along my A1... Well it's very slow to boot so a cup of coffee is done every boot-time. The noise the hd makes is un-understable and some viruses came along. Some XP-programs (games as tested) are incompatible.
For the happy side I got this to work and now no need to plug it off when freezes. (Just press the power button for a while) All things work at the net Thanks to
Firefox etc. Now I am able to piraehemm, borrow stuff and watch cool videos, play racing and sexybabes games.
Still booting the A1 for this site (as now) and for banking (as just did) for security and for responsivness (as it is) and for a quick close down (as comes;)
The 3D is just for fun, and never buy under 2GB mem
(as here)
This machine cost 399¤. There should be something to learn at these Amigasites about the price, no? ;) Bye.
-
Would I have gotten a good reply from a pro windows site?
Do you think they would have been too pro windows?
-
DonnyEMU wrote:
For those complaining about file copies taking longer than XP, that was true until they released a hotfix that was on Windows Update.. That's no worse than some of the Mac OSX 10.5 bugs of the same type.
...
This very much reminds me of the situation with Windows 2000 adoption many years ago, when they had to offer new drivers for the first NON-DOS version of Windows and NT replaced Windows 98/ME.. The manufacturers of third parties took months even after release to become compliant. There was much complaining going on then too.. But the reality of this is these 3rd parties had nearly two years to come onboard. Microsoft offered plenty of betas and didn't just spring this on them over night..
I wasn't aware that hotfix or the other compatibility/performance hotfixes were ever pushed out onto Vista update. I thought you had to explicitly download it and install it yourself. Not really a "bug" but just a "desired behavior" by MS in slowing network performance when audio/video media was playing for best playback performance. But man did that piss people off, heheh.
At least it was just slow. OS X 10.5 Leopard's file-transfer bug resulted in lost data. Ouch.
I think Win2K was able to use the WDM drivers that were introduced in Win98, which supposedly gave device makers even MORE time to write and test.
Some never did make WDM Win98/2K drivers... I was bitten by that a few times, myself.
-
trekiej wrote:
Would I have gotten a good reply from a pro windows site?
Do you think they would have been too pro windows?
No, and no.
It's fashionable to bash Windows, even on Windows-centric sites. Of course, some of the bashing is well-deserved.
-
amigaksi wrote:
>Technically what is wrong with it? Please just do not say it >sucks.
>Thanks.
>
>Edit: 17:05 ***********
>I guess that there are as many opinions as there are hardware >manufacturers.
If you are asking from hardware point of view, it would depend on the hardware you install Vista, XP or any other OS on. Why settle for opinions, when you can benchmark the hardware I/O for yourself. Here's results I got with running a peripheral simulation task that uses I/O transfers more than non I/O 80x86 instructions (mainly LPT port):
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320189144289
Compaq Armada 1120 w/16MB running Windows 3.11: 1.2MB/second
Toshiba 460CDT w/32MB running Windows 3.11: 1.5MB/second
Toshiba 460CDT w/32MB running Win98SE: 1.1MB/second
Tecra 8000-366Mhz w/128MB running Windows 3.11: 1MB/second
Tecra 8000-366Mhz w/128MB running Windows 98SE: 960KB/second
Tecra 8000-366Mhz w/128MB running Windows XP: 930KB/second
Tecra 8000-366Mhz w/128MB running Vista (can't install it-- not enough memory-- probably does not support 366Mhz)
HP Ze1000 1.3Ghz w/512MB running WinXP: 560KB/second
The more software layers/drivers/protection you put on top of the hardware, the worse the performance.
Without analysis of the methods used to communicate with the para port in this software which you ran on two completely different operating systems makes this benchmark a waste of time and the results irrelevant.
-
@trekiej
Yes, just like XP there are options for turning off feature you do not truly need and it does help in speeding things up a little.
-
@Flashlab
No, don't get me wrong, others are entitled to their opinions it's true. I just said that I do not like one making a decision on just 1 or 2 weeks trial. Like I stated, I felt the same way as others have but I continued to play around with the OS and have it working for me. My system is not the best for Vista but like I said, it works. I am not trying to put anyone down, just my own opinion as well my friend. :)
Also, I do have XP installed on my system as well.
-
I did a bit of testing with Vista Ultimate x64, and after a _lot_ of tweaking, I managed to get it perfectly usable, although still noticably slower than XP.
The big advantage is that Vista's UI management is far more accelerated (ok, it's accelerated in another way) than the one in XP, resulting in a much smoother feel on high-end systems (notice the "high-end"? no rants please!), even though total system performance is lower.
If all you're doing is surfing the web, and writing letters, then this new feel to the UI is probably an advantage over XP, but for gamers, productivity users, and others who need to squeeze every last bit of powa out of their systems, then XP is probably a better choice, at least until we are forced to use Vista because of DX10 and newer versions of Windows live messenger. :lol:
-
I hope I have not opened a provebial can of worms.
Some are probably wondering why this dude is even bringing this up. What can I say,Msoft is apart of peoples life. Not everyone even use a computer though.
I like Msoft and I hate Msoft. I do not feel they care about you and me, but people rip them off and I guess I would be mad too. A part of me wants to buy there software and a part likes open source.
Thanks for listening to my babble.
-
>Without analysis of the methods used to communicate with the >para port in this software which you ran on two completely >different operating systems makes this benchmark a waste of >time and the results irrelevant.
The software used to communicate with the parallel port is the same-- MPDOS Pro available with floppy simulator or other link I gave:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320189136265
It uses assembly language instructions IN AL,DX and OUT DX,AL not high level languages. You can try running the MPDOS Pro yourself on various operatings systems and see the results for yourself. It works on Windows 3.x, Win 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP. Vista too if they did not screw things too badly in creating upgrade for XP.
If you want to try without MPDOS, run the DEBUG program in the command prompt and try the following sample code:
Mov DX,378
DB 66
Mov CX,0
DW 1000
In AL,DX
DB 66
Dec CX
Jnz 109
Int 3
Use your wrist watch to time the above code which does 256MB of IN instructions. You can similarly do other port addresses or OUT instruction. 378h is the port address for all the machines I mentioned. The above code will work in DOS box for Windows 3.11, Windows 95/98/ME. For 2000/XP, you will first have to disable I/O port trapping for the parallel port else you'll get much worse results than those I gave.
The IN/OUT instructions for reading/writing bytes is the same in 16-bit or 32-bit modes so it does not change when you switch OSes being discussed.
-
Areo is cool.
Now you can scroll through all thoughs Blue Screens of Death in virtual 3D. Sweet!! :-D
It's got great features like Windows Defender built in.
This latest version of defender features "DCS" or Doesn't Catch Sh*t virus proctection. :-D
Check more out here... Link (http://www.blimptv.net/mostpopularV1.html)
-
:roflmao: :roflmao:
:roflmao: :roflmao:
:roflmao: :roflmao:
-
The speed difference between Vista and XP is noticeable, with XP being considerably faster, and the gap is about to widen even more: Early in 2008, Microsoft is planning to release Service Pack 3 for XP, and I have heard that SP3 will, for example, make XP running MS Word 10% faster than XP with Service Pack 2, widening the speed gap considerably.
You mean the "officebench mark" that was done on the same hardware ? read this (http://www.betanews.com/article/XP_SP3_outperforms_Vista_SP1_but_less_when_running_same_Office_version/1196208954). Real good test. Perhaps they should have included Win98 with Office97.
In issuing Service Pack 3 for XP, Microsoft is clearly on the defensive. It's nice to see them at least somewhat on the defensive for a change.
So far, SP3 is hardly any more then all updates that MS made for XP rolled into one. Strangely enough the RC1 of SP3 doesn't seem to feature IE7. It's nothing compared to what SP2 did to XP. And before SP2, XP was a very unstable OS (IMHO), offcourse, when SP2 came out people complained about all chances, just like they did when XP itself was released (hm.. A pattern..). Besides, SP3 has been in the planning since Longhorn was still based on XP (ie, years ago)
SP1 for Vista is somewhat the same, all updates for it rolled into 1, with the exception that several updates that are available for Vista are not obtained by using Windows Update like the "hotfixes", those hotfixes are available only if you need them and can't wait for SP1 but these may be better in SP1.
UAC isn't that bad at all, for a long read go here (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2007/06/UAC/default.aspx). It may be bad if you have the habbit of (un)installing programs every minute or so or changing your settings all the time.
I'm running Vista since Beta 1, and since RC1 as my main windows OS. There were some problems with third party drivers or programs and because the OS is made more secure some things just don't work like they used to (like sound drivers and those are therefore "less" then XP drivers, not to mention creative being "unwilling" to make drivers for a beta OS...) With all hotfixes and updates it's a very good Windows OS.
As for memory usage, yes Vista takes advantage of the memory instead of putting it all on disk. On XP, alt-tabbing out of a game could take ages as the OS tried to load everyhing back from disk to ram. On vista it's much faster, but it does depend on the game. Offcourse, there are people out there that have a memory meter just to look at how much (useless) memory they have free, or use "memory managers" that keep a certain ammount of ram free (while making the OS slow..).
Also, a lot of problems are from older non compatible programs that should have been forgotten allready. Like Norton 2003 giving problems on Vista. (As if Norton worked anyway).. Or not compatible drivers, just when XP hit the market.
Come on people. Have we forgotten how it was when going from 1.3 to 2.0 ? The joke was "the good thing about Kickstart 2 is that old virusses don't work anymore"
-
I upgraded my machine last week.
I now have Athlon 64x2 2.4GHz, 2GB DDR2-800, 8600GT 540MB graphics, Foxconn AM2 M/B and a 1/2 TB SATA disk.
I upgraded specifically for Unreal Tournament 3 and bought a copy of Vista Ultimate 64bit. (I didn't want any boot splash screen to say 'home' - I don't know who is running Microsofts marketing department but it might as well say Vista Dweeb edition! :-D )
I find that Vista runs slightly faster than XP on my old machine (2GHz, 1GB Athlon socket 754) but it looks impressive and it doesn't slow down when I've got something substantial (like a video render) in the background. Obviously this is down to the other CPU not vista!
Normally I wouldn't buy windows at least before the first service pack and I used Win2K up to 2005.
However UT3 over ruled this. There is no Linux 64bit version. It runs on vista with everything maxed out at full wack - smooth as a babies bottom. The 8400GT particularly impresses!
A couple of niggles - my barricade print server wont work under vista - I had to get a standard tcp/ip port one (d-link) on ebay. £10.
I only paid £100 for my OEM vista ultimate - I'd say it was worth the money. Having said that, if UT3 64bit had been available on Linux I would have gone the whole Linux hog.
It would be interesting to see how many copies of Vista sold on the back of UT3. Unreal Tournament must have the highest proportion of people who absolutely will not compromise! :-)
Now to find a beautifully rendered stairwell or recess - let the camping begin!! :-D
-
I upgraded my machine last week.
I now have Athlon 64x2 2.4GHz, 2GB DDR2-800, 8600GT 540MB graphics, Foxconn AM2 M/B and a 1/2 TB SATA disk.
I upgraded specifically for Unreal Tournament 3 and bought a copy of Vista Ultimate 64bit. (I didn't want any boot splash screen to say 'home' - I don't know who is running Microsofts marketing department but it might as well say Vista Dweeb edition! :-D )
I find that Vista runs slightly faster than XP on my old machine (2GHz, 1GB Athlon socket 754) but it looks impressive and it doesn't slow down when I've got something substantial (like a video render) in the background. Obviously this is down to the other CPU not vista!
Normally I wouldn't buy windows at least before the first service pack and I used Win2K up to 2005.
However UT3 over ruled this. There is no Linux 64bit version. It runs on vista with everything maxed out at full wack - smooth as a babies bottom. The 8400GT particularly impresses!
A couple of niggles - my barricade print server wont work under vista - I had to get a standard tcp/ip port one (d-link) on ebay. £10.
I only paid £100 for my OEM vista ultimate - I'd say it was worth the money. Having said that, if UT3 64bit had been available on Linux I would have gone the whole Linux hog.
It would be interesting to see how many copies of Vista sold on the back of UT3. Unreal Tournament must have the highest proportion of people who absolutely will not compromise! :-)
Now to find a beautifully rendered stairwell or recess - let the camping begin!! :-D
-
I've tried Vista for a couple of days and removed it pretty soon after (reasons already explained by others).
I've switched to Ubuntu (which I love) with a partition for XP purely and simply to play Team Fortress 2.
btw I've just installed Office 2003 under Crossover on Ubuntu, and it's as fast if not a shade faster than on XP.
Cheers.
*edit* oh and the eye candy is just as good as with Vista now that Compizfusion has been wedged into Gutsy. 4 Desktops with cube effect anyone?