What would it take for you to switch to VISTA?

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: JEDI
(If this belongs to OFF TOPIC, please move.)

As long as it works under WinXP, there's nothing that will make me move to Vista.

So what would it take for you to move to Vista?

Installation media and about half an hour.

 

[bsobel]

as it is right now Vista is just for Show, it does not work in the Real World.

You may have some devices you need drivers for, but saying Vista doesnt work in the real world is a pretty ignorant statement. For most users (just look ^) Vista is working just fine and these same users prefer it to XP. While it may not work for you, you are not the definition of 'the real world'.

 

[AllGamer]

The drivers are out already, but they are incomplete, mainly due vista lack of more control

drivers in vista are not as polished as those on the XP

and drivers aside, there are still many proprietary software for hardwares that does not work in vista, and meanwhile some manufacture plans to release it sometimes in the future (ati) or not, many will just drop or charge money as an extra (Creative)

From a Player point of view, the lack of more hardware control in vista kinda sucks.

Not to mention, the problem with Games in Vista needing way too much resources, than required vs. XP, same game, same system, etc.

So Vista is definitely not ready for prime time Gaming.

the way it looks right now, Vista is like "Linux" where gamers are left to fend for themself when it comes to games.

people switching to vista are either forced it down, when buying new hardware.

or just curious bunch that wants the latest and "greatest" just to show off.

then you see in all the games forums people wondering why they have problem playing in Vista.

LOL

BTW. yes "Real World" from a Game player perspective.

 

[Nothinman]

and drivers aside, there are still many proprietary software for hardwares that does not work in vista, and meanwhile some manufacture plans to release it sometimes in the future (ati) or not, many will just drop or charge money as an extra (Creative)

That's a problem with the proprietary software that sucks and the manufacturers that won't support their users not a problem with Vista.

From a Player point of view, the lack of more hardware control in vista kinda sucks.

The only thing I know that's changed is the new lack of DirectSound3D hardware support which only affects EAX users. And frankly I have to laugh at anyone who spends more than like $20 on a sound card so I can't say that I feel bad for Creative or it's users on that front.

 

[bsobel]

From a Player point of view, the lack of more hardware control in vista kinda sucks.

Can you elaborate on this, I'm honestly not sure what your refering to so it's hard to respond to it...

Not to mention, the problem with Games in Vista needing way too much resources, than required vs. XP, same game, same system, etc. So Vista is definitely not ready for prime time Gaming.

Well, as another user posted I think its fair to say Vista needs a good 512meg more than XP. That said, I and many other users here are gaming just fine on Vista. Now, if you are going to be upset about a game running at say 55fps vs 60fps, XP still has an edge. But the driver side especially video has improved radically from January.

the way it looks right now, Vista is like "Linux" where gamers are left to fend for themself when it comes to games.

That is a redicolous statement, many mainstream games are available on Vista and supported by the publishers. Many more older games 'just work' find out of the box. Comparing that to Linux gaming is disingenous.

people switching to vista are either forced it down, when buying new hardware.
or just curious bunch that wants the latest and "greatest" just to show off.

Or folks like me that doesn't have another alternative in a MS OS to use the power of my machine (XP32 can't, XP64 is orphaned, 2003 server 64 isn't as compatible with games). But thats ok, given the MS OS choices, V64 is my hands down choice for a desktop rig.

BTW. yes "Real World" from a Game player perspective.

Yes, clearly you were talking about gaiming in your last post since you mentioned your scanner, your tv card, your palm, and your sound card (yea, I'll give you the sound card was gaming related).

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: AllGamer
The drivers are out already, but they are incomplete, mainly due vista lack of more control

drivers in vista are not as polished as those on the XP

and drivers aside, there are still many proprietary software for hardwares that does not work in vista, and meanwhile some manufacture plans to release it sometimes in the future (ati) or not, many will just drop or charge money as an extra (Creative)

From a Player point of view, the lack of more hardware control in vista kinda sucks.

Not to mention, the problem with Games in Vista needing way too much resources, than required vs. XP, same game, same system, etc.

So Vista is definitely not ready for prime time Gaming.

the way it looks right now, Vista is like "Linux" where gamers are left to fend for themself when it comes to games.

people switching to vista are either forced it down, when buying new hardware.

or just curious bunch that wants the latest and "greatest" just to show off.

then you see in all the games forums people wondering why they have problem playing in Vista.

LOL

BTW. yes "Real World" from a Game player perspective.

"So Vista is definately not ready for prime time gaming"

Dude, are you even running Vista??

I'm a huge gamer and I've been running it since November. nVidia drivers were the only rough spot but that's over.

You need to provide some specifics on this or I'm just gonna call shenanigans on your whole post.

 

[AllGamer]

Yes i multi boot, i got vista 64 ultimate, but i'm not sastified with the results
XP is still the main OS for games, TV on Demand
for work i boot to Linux
for troubleshooting i like Win98se
and sometimes i boot back to DOS just for memories, and those good old DOS games

re: playing resources XP vs Vista, i'm talking about the 2Gb problem, the article is still on the front page of AnandTech, Having 4GB doesn't really do much, when the OS itself have a hard time when a process reaches 2Gb in size.

just like yesterday i was editing some DVDs and it was only a 3Gb process, and it crapped out, had to start my project from scratch and this time i had to do it via the Slow HDD method, rather than on the Fly in RAM

i'll give it another 2 years or so until it becomes more polished, until then Vista... is just for eye candies.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: AllGamer
The drivers are out already, but they are incomplete, mainly due vista lack of more control

drivers in vista are not as polished as those on the XP

and drivers aside, there are still many proprietary software for hardwares that does not work in vista, and meanwhile some manufacture plans to release it sometimes in the future (ati) or not, many will just drop or charge money as an extra (Creative)

From a Player point of view, the lack of more hardware control in vista kinda sucks.

Not to mention, the problem with Games in Vista needing way too much resources, than required vs. XP, same game, same system, etc.

So Vista is definitely not ready for prime time Gaming.

the way it looks right now, Vista is like "Linux" where gamers are left to fend for themself when it comes to games.

people switching to vista are either forced it down, when buying new hardware.

or just curious bunch that wants the latest and "greatest" just to show off.

then you see in all the games forums people wondering why they have problem playing in Vista.

LOL

BTW. yes "Real World" from a Game player perspective.

Speak for yourself only,personally never had any gaming problems and I'm using 64 bit version of Vista,I also have all my hardware drivers,as to Creative Labs you should really be blaming them for lack of software support for Vista,end of the day it's the companies(of the hardware in question) responsibility to release drivers for their hardware,my Audigy 4 works ok ,true no Creative software but I can live without that and I would point the lack of Audigy software right at Creative Labs and not Vista.

The fact is Vista is now over 6 months old so companies have had time to release drivers etc..if you don't have the support then I suggest you email the hardware companies concerned.


Oh and my last count was 36 games installed on my Vista x64 and thats not all of the games I have actually tested,saying Vista is not ready for prime time,sorry I got to laugh at that,if I had any problems with gaming I would of switched back to XP,the fact is my XP is now only used for updates and I've had no need to game on XP ,due to Vista x64 being more then solid in that area.

Vista is quite amazing when you consider how well its doing for a 6+ month old OS,I don't remember XP being anywhere near as good as this in its early days(first year).
Yes I'm a gamer too .

 

[bsobel]

re: playing resources XP vs Vista, i'm talking about the 2Gb problem, the article is still on the front page of AnandTech, Having 4GB doesn't really do much, when the OS itself have a hard time when a process reaches 2Gb in size.

Didnt see it until you mentioned it (gonna go read the whole thing now). One thing worth mentioning is that on V64 32bit application marked large memory aware actually get 4gig of user process space up from 2 (an up from the 3gig you can get on XP with PAE mode). I run supreme commander in that mode for that reason.

 

[bsobel]

re: playing resources XP vs Vista, i'm talking about the 2Gb problem, the article is still on the front page of AnandTech, Having 4GB doesn't really do much, when the OS itself have a hard time when a process reaches 2Gb in size.

One more comment, this statement struck me as funny. You said having 4gb doesnt really do much when you can't have a process use more than 2gb. But we are talking about per process, I can have dozes (if not more) proceses running. The OS doesnt have a problem if one runs out of address space, that is an application issue. How the application handles that case is up to it. The OS handles it just fine... I run 32gig on this box, normally have lots of high memory processes running (primarily virtual machines). The only app I have the routinely crashes with memory issues is Supreme Commander, and it's been bugged and I just need to wait for them to fix a couple of things (and turn on the LME flag by default in case I forget again after a patch)

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: AllGamer
Yes i multi boot, i got vista 64 ultimate, but i'm not sastified with the results
XP is still the main OS for games, TV on Demand
for work i boot to Linux
for troubleshooting i like Win98se

warningflag

and sometimes i boot back to DOS just for memories, and those good old DOS games

re: playing resources XP vs Vista, i'm talking about the 2Gb problem, the article is still on the front page of AnandTech, Having 4GB doesn't really do much, when the OS itself have a hard time when a process reaches 2Gb in size.

just like yesterday i was editing some DVDs and it was only a 3Gb process, and it crapped out, had to start my project from scratch and this time i had to do it via the Slow HDD method, rather than on the Fly in RAM

That does it. SHENANIGANS.

Are you running Vista 64 or aren't you?

BTW the article on the front page is for 32 bit OSs so pointing and saying "see? see?" doesn't work.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: masteraleph
Already did move. Superfetch, searching, more stability and 4GB. Next?

Yep.

I use it pretty much exclusively for gaming and have never really had any problems. I have had issues with Crossfire compatibility, but none with Vista, so I have no idea what AllGamer is talking about.

In fact, overall things just feel a little peppier than they did in XP.

KT

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: AllGamer
Yes i multi boot, i got vista 64 ultimate, but i'm not sastified with the results
XP is still the main OS for games, TV on Demand
for work i boot to Linux
for troubleshooting i like Win98se
and sometimes i boot back to DOS just for memories, and those good old DOS games

I personally dumped XP for Vista 32 bit. I just boot Vista HP and Ubuntu (or whatever distro I am playing with at the time.) I spend almost all my time in Vista since I upgraded 3 weeks ago. XP just feels so old and outdated compared to Vista and modern Linux distros.

Originally posted by: AllGamer
re: playing resources XP vs Vista, I'm talking about the 2Gb problem, the article is still on the front page of AnandTech, Having 4GB doesn't really do much, when the OS itself have a hard time when a process reaches 2Gb in size.

just like yesterday i was editing some DVDs and it was only a 3Gb process, and it crapped out, had to start my project from scratch and this time i had to do it via the Slow HDD method, rather than on the Fly in RAM

Most people running 32 bit Vista will not experience this problem. People that run games like Supreme Commander are for the most part hardcore gamers that must have the latest and greatest both in hardware and in software. Very few people actually do task with their computers like editing dvd's.

If you do memory hungry task like these you should be running 64 bit Vista to begin with. (Yes I am aware you are running 64 bit Vista.)

You can not blame Microsoft or Vista because some applications have shoddy programing and are not large memory aware. You need to contact the software publisher and demand they provide a patch to overcome this issue.

Originally posted by: AllGamer
i'll give it another 2 years or so until it becomes more polished, until then Vista... is just for eye candies.

This is a ridiculous statement. Vista is a lot more than about "eye candy". I am not going to bother to even list the benefits Vista has over XP since that dead horse has been beaten on this board many times already.

Vista is polished and ready for most people now. Yes there will be cases where the software will need to catch up to Vista. But the vast majority of applications already work and work well in Vista.

Just because your applications are not Vista ready does not mean that most people are experiencing the same problems as you. Give it 6 more months and most of these problems will be history.

 

[AllGamer]

Well if you guys are talking about distinction between Vista vs. Manufacturers, then it's true Vista on its own works fine out of the box, and the Manufacturers are to blame for not offering better support for their software (not drivers) to work on Vista.

Having only the drivers, and no real software, or even 3rd party software to make those hardware work at its full potential, makes Vista totally unattractive.

But what is an OS good for if you can not do what you want to do, with the hardware you bought to do what you wanted to do, but can not do with this OS?

Gaming is a no brainer, you just need the drivers, and nothing else. The only thing you need to worry about is compatibility and video issues, if you can get those 2 out of the way, any game will work.

To me it's worthless to use Vista, 60% of my hardware aren't full supported yet. Many specialized hardware features that can only be activated by the Manufactures software either lost their funtionality in Vista to make it Vista compliant, or they are not supported at all.

But barebones using their drivers i've got no problem at all, and as some said Vista does seems to run more robust and faster than XP, but at a price.... no specialized support for those advance Mouse / Keyboard features, WebCam no longer supported, no EAX, no TV, no etc....

For the rest of the world that only runs Vista + Games or Vista + Work, it has no impact, unless you are doing specialized stuff like AutoCAD with a specialized tabled table, and or CAD arms, that again requires specialized software, cuz just having the driver alone, doesn't cut it.

re: article on front page, yes it talks about vista 32 vs XP 32, it'll be nice to see the same article expanded to cover Vista 64 vs XP64
another note, the problem as mentioned by bsobel with memory, is per process of each application, or game in this case, so i doub't it'll make any difference at all even if it was on XP 64 vs Vista 64, if the underlying problem is with the game and not the OS as bsobel points out, then the same problem will be there.

on a related topic, from the article seems like there is already a patch for those games being affected by the 2GB barrier random problems.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: masteraleph
Already did move. Superfetch, searching, more stability and 4GB. Next?

Yep.

I use it pretty much exclusively for gaming and have never really had any problems. I have had issues with Crossfire compatibility, but none with Vista, so I have no idea what AllGamer is talking about.

In fact, overall things just feel a little peppier than they did in XP.

KT

Superfetch? Just so you can "load" programs faster? whoopeedo.
Searching? hit my HDD all day just so I can search for something? I organize my stuff well and I hardly search for anything.
Stability over what? My XP never crash on me and it works with 100% of hardware/software I use.
4GB? Haha, who use 4GB unless you use superfetch.

I am already using Vista but that's because the new laptop I bought came with it. For me to actually ditch my XP and go to Vista, it will be another year or two when XP is not supported and most hardware/software supports Vista.

 

[Gerbil333]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
And frankly I have to laugh at anyone who spends more than like $20 on a sound card so I can't say that I feel bad for Creative or it's users on that front.

Really? People spend hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars on audio equipment. I can't stand crap sound cards. They sound like crap. No one likes crap.

 

[Nothinman]

Really? People spend hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars on audio equipment. I can't stand crap sound cards. They sound like crap. No one likes crap.

For games? Yes, I most certainly do and will. For pro recording of course not. But the complaint of the person I was responding to was about games, lack of hardware accelerated audio and lack of EAX which is enormously laughable IMO.

 

[VladMM]

Originally posted by: AllGamer
Yes i multi boot, i got vista 64 ultimate, but i'm not sastified with the results
XP is still the main OS for games, TV on Demand
for work i boot to Linux
for troubleshooting i like Win98se
and sometimes i boot back to DOS just for memories, and those good old DOS games

re: playing resources XP vs Vista, i'm talking about the 2Gb problem, the article is still on the front page of AnandTech, Having 4GB doesn't really do much, when the OS itself have a hard time when a process reaches 2Gb in size.

just like yesterday i was editing some DVDs and it was only a 3Gb process, and it crapped out, had to start my project from scratch and this time i had to do it via the Slow HDD method, rather than on the Fly in RAM

i'll give it another 2 years or so until it becomes more polished, until then Vista... is just for eye candies.

Come again? You use Win98SE for WHAT?

 

[StopSign]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Superfetch? Just so you can "load" programs faster? whoopeedo.

So you're saying Superfetch is useless? The longest loading periods are during program startups. You'd rather not have programs load faster?

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: StopSign

Originally posted by: rchiu
Superfetch? Just so you can "load" programs faster? whoopeedo.

So you're saying Superfetch is useless? The longest loading periods are during program startups. You'd rather not have programs load faster?

I don't like my programs to load fast either. That's why I underclock my ram, and manually set all of my drives to PIO only. Fast computers are for noobs

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: StopSign

Originally posted by: rchiu
Superfetch? Just so you can "load" programs faster? whoopeedo.

So you're saying Superfetch is useless? The longest loading periods are during program startups. You'd rather not have programs load faster?

I don't like my programs to load fast either. That's why I underclock my ram, and manually set all of my drives to PIO only. Fast computers are for noobs

Heh, I don't know about you, but I don't startup my program, shut it down and restart it again all day. I probably spend less than 2 minutes on starting programs the entire day, and more than 5 hours using my programs. So let's see, you are telling me that Vista improving that 2 minutes and not the 5 hours I actually run my program should be a big deal to me?

Oh and my computer with XP stay on 24/7 and the last time I actually restarted my computer was when the storm hit my neighborhood and we had a black out. So I don't care about how fast the OS start up too.

Anyway, good for you if you spend thousands of dollar on your PC gear and the new OS so you can improve that few minutes you actually spend to start/load your program.

 

[Modelworks]

Its going to be well over a year before I even consider switching to vista.
I have alot of apps that simply are not vista compatible.
Most of them use opengl which while vista supports, the video drivers are less than great.
Also most of the software companies products I use are in no hurry to support vista since there clients don't see the need for it.

I do 3d animation and the apps already get plenty of memory running xp x64 and as long as the apps perform well in xp , people in my field are not interested in moving to vista unless its going to give them something they don't have now.

Products I use with poor or no vista support:
3D Studio Max 9 Sp2
Bodypaint 3D R3
Avid Liquid
Hitech Pic C
Zbrush
Electronics workbench
Softimage XSI

Its not like these systems cannot run vista either.
They almost always have atleast 4GB ram, some with 16GB and all are Xeon/opteron or quad core . So the hardware is there, its just waiting for the software to "catch up"

 

[StopSign]

Originally posted by: rchiu
So let's see, you are telling me that Vista improving that 2 minutes and not the 5 hours I actually run my program should be a big deal to me?

Heh. I knew you were going to come back and say that. How fast your programs run after starting up is mostly dependent on hardware, and usually the hard drive speed. It's not something you can drastically improve with a new OS.

You're making it sound like Superfetch is a negative aspect of Vista. It doesn't work miracles, but it does improve something. Agree?

 

[masteraleph]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Superfetch? Just so you can "load" programs faster? whoopeedo.

Are you actually arguing that that's a negative?

Searching? hit my HDD all day just so I can search for something? I organize my stuff well and I hardly search for anything.

First, it doesn't hit the HDD all day after the first few days of use. Second, you obviously don't have a significant backlog of files for multiple years. Ever try to remember data that was in a paper, article, brief, etc that you wrote 4 years ago?

4GB? Haha, who use 4GB unless you use superfetch.

Let's see here...well, anyone running Supreme Commander at top settings will blow through 2GB of ram on that process alone. And anyone running, say, large photoshop files?

Unfortunately, it seems that the one thing Vista failed to include was an automatic spell/grammar check program.

 

[nerp]

Uhh, superfetch does more than just "load programs faster."

Key system files and other things are cached. There's a lot more to superfetch than just having programs snap open. It provides benefits system wide. Turning it off is pointless and makes no sense.

If HD noise bothers you, put some rubber grommits between the HD and the case, get a better case, or reorient your machine. My computer is under my desk, I have a pair of raptors which are supposedly loud and I can't even hear them.