Is Vista Worth it?

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I disagree that there is a performance boost in Vista. The disk performance absolutely sucks compared with XP. It uses way more memory. The only supposedly good feature in Vista is superfetch, but I never found it did anything with my 3gb of ram.

I would say you should wait for Windows 7. I hear there is a new beta coming out; maybe you could sign up for it to see if you like it.

Vista is much faster than XP. It has more memory usage because it utilizes the memory it has.

I would like to see some benchmarks to prove that.

Every disk benchmark I've ever seen has Vista lagging XP considerably.

Superfetch would not benefit the OP as he only has 2gb of ram.

What makes you say that? My desktop sits idle around 1 gig of memory usage... when I have a browser with a few tabs open, iTunes and an IM client, it's around 1200 MB usage... 800 MB reminaing is plenty for SuperFetch to make a difference. However, I have 8 GB total, so it's a non issue for me, but still, 2 GB is plenty unless you have an off-the-shelf computer with a bunch of crapware installed and running in the background.

*EDIT* I've also not experienced anything that indicates poor disk performance in Vista, though I haven't actually run any hard disk benchmarks.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I disagree that there is a performance boost in Vista. The disk performance absolutely sucks compared with XP. It uses way more memory. The only supposedly good feature in Vista is superfetch, but I never found it did anything with my 3gb of ram.

I would say you should wait for Windows 7. I hear there is a new beta coming out; maybe you could sign up for it to see if you like it.

Vista is much faster than XP. It has more memory usage because it utilizes the memory it has.

I would like to see some benchmarks to prove that.

Every disk benchmark I've ever seen has Vista lagging XP considerably.

Superfetch would not benefit the OP as he only has 2gb of ram.

Well that's why he's asking if he should double his RAM as well which would make it 4GB. I wouldn't run Vista with anything less than 4GB.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I disagree that there is a performance boost in Vista. The disk performance absolutely sucks compared with XP. It uses way more memory. The only supposedly good feature in Vista is superfetch, but I never found it did anything with my 3gb of ram.

I would say you should wait for Windows 7. I hear there is a new beta coming out; maybe you could sign up for it to see if you like it.

Vista is much faster than XP. It has more memory usage because it utilizes the memory it has.

I would like to see some benchmarks to prove that.

Every disk benchmark I've ever seen has Vista lagging XP considerably.

Superfetch would not benefit the OP as he only has 2gb of ram.

Well that's why he's asking if he should double his RAM as well which would make it 4GB. I wouldn't run Vista with anything less than 4GB.

People are saying that Windows 7 obliterates Vista, so I don't know why you would suggest he should waste his money on it. :roll:

I'll tell you what I don't like about Vista:

1. The disk performance is slow.

2. It has a high memory footprint, regardless of superfetch.

3. It's a resource hog.

4. DX10 is a farce and essentially useless.

5. Indexing and ReadyBoost both do next to nothing.

6. UAC nag screens.

7. Problems, compatibility issues, driver issues, and BSODs.

I could go on, but I really had a poor experience with Vista. It could be because I was an early adopter. I really don't see how a hardware enthusiast could like such an inefficient OS though.

OP: Wait for Windows 7! Don't support a poor product like Vista; it sends MS the wrong message.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

I'll tell you what I don't like about Vista:

1. The disk performance is slow.

2. It has a high memory footprint, regardless of superfetch.

3. It's a resource hog.

4. DX10 is a farce and essentially useless.

5. Indexing and ReadyBoost both do next to nothing.

6. UAC nag screens.

7. Problems, compatibility issues, driver issues, and BSODs.

I could go on, but I really had a poor experience with Vista. It could be because I was an early adopter. I really don't see how a hardware enthusiast could like such an inefficient OS though.

OP: Wait for Windows 7! Don't support a poor product like Vista; it sends MS the wrong message.

Just one question. How long has it been since you have actually used Vista?

 

[mechBgon]

OP: Wait for Windows 7! Don't support a poor product like Vista; it sends MS the wrong message.

Vista's security obliterates WinXP. If there's a "poor product" here, it's not Vista. Someone was recently calling Vista "the WinME of the WinNT family," and ironically that's a more fitting description of WinXP, which started out as a fancified version of Win2000, and only showed merit when SP2 arrived. And when SP2 arrived, we had people dissing SP2. Such is life, people don't like change.

Arguing about memory footprint is sort of silly, when $35 shipped will buy you more RAM than 32-bit WinXP could even lay hands on. If you have no use for Indexing, then simply disable the Windows Search service, but many people do find it handy. If you want to live in the past and run software that's not Vista-compatible, you can always slap together a Win98 or Win2000 virtual machine.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I disagree that there is a performance boost in Vista. The disk performance absolutely sucks compared with XP. It uses way more memory. The only supposedly good feature in Vista is superfetch, but I never found it did anything with my 3gb of ram.

I would say you should wait for Windows 7. I hear there is a new beta coming out; maybe you could sign up for it to see if you like it.

Vista is much faster than XP. It has more memory usage because it utilizes the memory it has.

I would like to see some benchmarks to prove that.

Every disk benchmark I've ever seen has Vista lagging XP considerably.

Superfetch would not benefit the OP as he only has 2gb of ram.

Well that's why he's asking if he should double his RAM as well which would make it 4GB. I wouldn't run Vista with anything less than 4GB.

People are saying that Windows 7 obliterates Vista, so I don't know why you would suggest he should waste his money on it. :roll:

I'll tell you what I don't like about Vista:

1. The disk performance is slow.

2. It has a high memory footprint, regardless of superfetch.

3. It's a resource hog.

4. DX10 is a farce and essentially useless.

5. Indexing and ReadyBoost both do next to nothing.

6. UAC nag screens.

7. Problems, compatibility issues, driver issues, and BSODs.

I could go on, but I really had a poor experience with Vista. It could be because I was an early adopter. I really don't see how a hardware enthusiast could like such an inefficient OS though.

OP: Wait for Windows 7! Don't support a poor product like Vista; it sends MS the wrong message.

That last statement is pure FUD and unwarranted.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

OP: Wait for Windows 7! Don't support a poor product like Vista; it sends MS the wrong message.

Vista's security obliterates WinXP. If there's a "poor product" here, it's not Vista. Someone was recently calling Vista "the WinME of the WinNT family," and ironically that's a more fitting description of WinXP, which started out as a fancified version of Win2000, and only showed merit when SP2 arrived. And when SP2 arrived, we had people dissing SP2. Such is life, people don't like change.

Arguing about memory footprint is sort of silly, when $35 shipped will buy you more RAM than 32-bit WinXP could even lay hands on. If you have no use for Indexing, then simply disable the Windows Search service, but many people do find it handy. If you want to live in the past and run software that's not Vista-compatible, you can always slap together a Win98 or Win2000 virtual machine.

For me, memory is certainly not that cheap, being on a DDR system, plus my motherboard won't even let me work with more than 4gb.

My processor is more than acceptable; I have a dual-core Opteron running at 2.7ghz.

People always praise the security of Vista. I realize that it's a great feature, but is it really worth $100 in light of all of the issues Vista brings along? You can lock down XP quite well if you know what you're doing.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Mem
That last statement is pure FUD and unwarranted.

You have the right to your opinion. Mine is that I think Vista is a poor OS.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Mem
That last statement is pure FUD and unwarranted.

You have the right to your opinion. Mine is that I think Vista is a poor OS.

Opinion is one thing but that statement is far from true.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Mem
That last statement is pure FUD and unwarranted.

You have the right to your opinion. Mine is that I think Vista is a poor OS.

You still haven't answered my previous question on when was the last time you used Vista in any real context. Until you can answer that simple question honestly, you are nothing more than another mindless Vista basher.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Mem
That last statement is pure FUD and unwarranted.

You have the right to your opinion. Mine is that I think Vista is a poor OS.

You still haven't answered my previous question on when was the last time you used Vista in any real context. Until you can answer that simple question honestly, you are nothing more than another mindless Vista basher.

Why does it even matter?

I used the OS for about a year after it was first released, and then stopped a little bit after I installed SP1.

So, I suppose I haven't used it in 6-8 months or so.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Mem
That last statement is pure FUD and unwarranted.

You have the right to your opinion. Mine is that I think Vista is a poor OS.

You still haven't answered my previous question on when was the last time you used Vista in any real context. Until you can answer that simple question honestly, you are nothing more than another mindless Vista basher.

I can answer it(I'm sure SickBeast will make another inaccurate remark),as a beta games tester and long term Vista user on more then one PC I can say its been a joy to work with,I won't say its perfect because no OS including Win7 is perfect.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: mechBgon

OP: Wait for Windows 7! Don't support a poor product like Vista; it sends MS the wrong message.

Vista's security obliterates WinXP. If there's a "poor product" here, it's not Vista. Someone was recently calling Vista "the WinME of the WinNT family," and ironically that's a more fitting description of WinXP, which started out as a fancified version of Win2000, and only showed merit when SP2 arrived. And when SP2 arrived, we had people dissing SP2. Such is life, people don't like change.

Arguing about memory footprint is sort of silly, when $35 shipped will buy you more RAM than 32-bit WinXP could even lay hands on. If you have no use for Indexing, then simply disable the Windows Search service, but many people do find it handy. If you want to live in the past and run software that's not Vista-compatible, you can always slap together a Win98 or Win2000 virtual machine.

For me, memory is certainly not that cheap, being on a DDR system, plus my motherboard won't even let me work with more than 4gb.

My system uses DDR as well. I just chucked another 2GB into it for $43 shipped. I remember spending $396 for 256MB of PC133 back in the day, so this is still amazing

People always praise the security of Vista. I realize that it's a great feature, but is it really worth $100 in light of all of the issues Vista brings along? You can lock down XP quite well if you know what you're doing.

I agree that WinXP can be locked down pretty well, if you know what you're doing. I have met very, very few people who actually do. Vista was developed under the SDL: Secure by design, secure by default, secure in deployment. Its time has definitely come, and from day 1, Vista was delivering a fundamental improvement in the security of a default Windows installation. It was irritating to hear all the back-&-forth about the GUI, the transparent windows, DirectX 10, blah blah etc, while the security improvements, the major story, were generally summarized as "oh, and they included Windows Defender." :roll:

By contrast, WinXP had little to offer until Service Pack 2 (also a product of SDL); I tried WinXP SP1a and went back to Win2000 after a month or two.

 

[Mem]

My system uses DDR as well. I just chucked another 2GB into it for $43 shipped. I remember spending $396 for 256MB of PC133 back in the day, so this is still amazing

I'm on DDR1 too and X2 3800+ CPU so nothing special in Vista and it flies.

 

[YankeesWin]

I have two rigs, one with 32-bit XP and the other with 32-bit Vista. My original intention was to give MS a while to fine tune the 64 bit OS' so to speak, and give developers time to release stable drivers; I just never got around to upgrading or staying abreast of the alleged issues with the both of them.

Soooo what I'm taking from this thread is that the issues people had with both XP 64 and Vista 64 have been corrected for the most part?

Just looking for some reassurance here. I'm bored and have copies of both laying around. Someone just quote this post and respond with "yes", rid me of my apprehension.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: YankeesWin
I have two rigs, one with 32-bit XP and the other with 32-bit Vista. My original intention was to give MS a while to fine tune the 64 bit OS' so to speak, and give developers time to release stable drivers; I just never got around to upgrading or staying abreast of the alleged issues with the both of them.

Soooo what I'm taking from this thread is that the issues people had with both XP 64 and Vista 64 have been corrected for the most part?

Just looking for some reassurance here. I'm bored and have copies of both laying around. Someone just quote this post and respond with "yes", rid me of my apprehension.

I have XP,Vista x86,Vista x64(even DOS6.22 and few more I could name) and have no issues with Vista x64,main thing to check is drivers are available and critical software you need to run will work with Vista x64,if you got those covered then you are good to go and should have no issues.

 

[YankeesWin]

Mem FTW!!! Applaud this man.

:thumbsup: