Scooby Doo
Golden Member
- Sep 1, 2006
- 1,034
- 18
- 81
Well my reset button is getting a nice workout with Vista... rarely had to use it with XP. Stupid drivers. isgust;
Originally posted by: Scooby Doo
Well my reset button is getting a nice workout with Vista... rarely had to use it with XP. Stupid drivers. isgust;
Originally posted by: Noema
Originally posted by: Scooby Doo
Well my reset button is getting a nice workout with Vista... rarely had to use it with XP. Stupid drivers. isgust;
Heh...tell me about it. Just installed Home Premium x64 for the first time.
I've already had 5 hard-locks in less than an hour. I blame Creative's drivers :|
Originally posted by: StopSign
You can't compare an OS to a car. The fundamental function of a car is to get you from point A to point B. No more, no less. Normally, you start at point A, 10 minutes later you arrive at point B, then you're completely done with the car. That's why I drive a 1990 Corolla. It's crap, but it does what needs to be done.Originally posted by: Sunner
Kinda like me and my car come to think of it.
I drive a Saab 900, it's not that old(-95), but it's got quite a few kilometres on it, and it's starting to show.
The A/C can't cool, the gearbox requires some..."special skill", it's starting to rust, the hand brake isn't very good(have to have it tuned up now and then, cheap enough that I don't care that much though), transmission probably won't last much longer, etc.
I've been thinking about buying myself a nice BWM, it's quite tempting, but I just can't motivate myself enough to go forth with it as long as the ole Saab gets me to work every day.
Operating systems are a lot more complicated. Sure, you can argue that XP does what you need it to do, and it "just works." I can't argue with that, but Vista does everything XP can do, and it does it more efficiently. Why do people who like Vista, like Vista? What is their reason? From a logical perspective, if it offers no improvements over XP, then why do they prefer Vista? If it's just XP with Vista Transform Pack slapped on, then why even bother going for the real thing? It doesn't make sense. There has to be some improvements that put it ahead of XP. Whether you want to discover these improvements for yourself or not is another issue altogether. You can choose to avoid Vista simply for the sake of avoiding it, or you can invest some time in adapting to a more modern OS.
Originally posted by: Noema
After about two hours of goofing around, going back to stock speeds, patching the OS up to date, installing newest drivers, updating the BIOS and then bumping the overclock back, Vista x64 finally feels stable.
And I have to say...I like it thus far. Seems really fast.
Originally posted by: Smilin
Originally posted by: Noema
After about two hours of goofing around, going back to stock speeds, patching the OS up to date, installing newest drivers, updating the BIOS and then bumping the overclock back, Vista x64 finally feels stable.
And I have to say...I like it thus far. Seems really fast.
I wouldn't be surprised if Vista is less forgiving of an overclock. Because of some added security features Vista is much more likely to choke on a bitflip than XP was. Overclocking does some pretty awful stuff even on a system that *appears* stable.
Originally posted by: Noema
Originally posted by: Smilin
Originally posted by: Noema
After about two hours of goofing around, going back to stock speeds, patching the OS up to date, installing newest drivers, updating the BIOS and then bumping the overclock back, Vista x64 finally feels stable.
And I have to say...I like it thus far. Seems really fast.
I wouldn't be surprised if Vista is less forgiving of an overclock. Because of some added security features Vista is much more likely to choke on a bitflip than XP was. Overclocking does some pretty awful stuff even on a system that *appears* stable.
Yeah, this is what I was thinking. I think I'm going to try the OC for a few days and at the first signs of instability I'll go back to stock. It's a very mild OC, mind you: an E6400 @ 2.66GHz, nothing extreme.
So far Vista is considerably faster than XP, not only in multitasking and general usage (WMP 11 opens in a heartbeat, and the library is smooth to browse instantly, as opposed to XP where it has to read the index off disk every time and it makes it extremely choppy until the whole thing is cached into RAM...well, that's with 400+ albums ) but also games show little difference in performance compared to XP.
By the way...Windows Update is suggesting I download the nVidia SATA drivers (I have a nforce 650 mobo)...I usually don't install nVidia's SATA drivers in XP and rather use the stock Windows ones....do you recommend installing nVidia's SATA drivers in Vista, Smilin?
Originally posted by: Scooby Doo
Well my reset button is getting a nice workout with Vista... rarely had to use it with XP. Stupid drivers. isgust;
Originally posted by: toadeater
Originally posted by: Scooby Doo
Well my reset button is getting a nice workout with Vista... rarely had to use it with XP. Stupid drivers. isgust;
You can't blame everything on the drivers. XP was never this bad when it was released. I don't remember so many crash and instability problems when I first upgraded to XP.
Maybe I have a faulty memory, but I honestly don't remember XP being this bad. There were minor things, mostly security issues, but not so many problems with hardware. Games ran significantly better than in 9x (maybe because I bought more RAM for XP?), and overall XP was actually more stable. Can you say the same thing about Vista?
Originally posted by: toadeater
Originally posted by: Scooby Doo
Well my reset button is getting a nice workout with Vista... rarely had to use it with XP. Stupid drivers. isgust;
You can't blame everything on the drivers. XP was never this bad when it was released. I don't remember so many crash and instability problems when I first upgraded to XP.
Maybe I have a faulty memory, but I honestly don't remember XP being this bad. There were minor things, mostly security issues, but not so many problems with hardware. Games ran significantly better than in 9x (maybe because I bought more RAM for XP?), and overall XP was actually more stable. Can you say the same thing about Vista?
Originally posted by: toadeater
You can't blame everything on the drivers. XP was never this bad when it was released. I don't remember so many crash and instability problems when I first upgraded to XP.
Maybe I have a faulty memory, but I honestly don't remember XP being this bad. There were minor things, mostly security issues, but not so many problems with hardware. Games ran significantly better than in 9x (maybe because I bought more RAM for XP?), and overall XP was actually more stable. Can you say the same thing about Vista?
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Nope, but Vista is much more different from XP than Xp was from 2k.
You are right about XP supporting much more hardware at the time than Vista supports now, and I'd say that the major underlying changes are the cause of that.
Vista is very good, but Vista is really only suitable for new/high-end systems. The rest should stick with XP until they can afford new hardware.
Originally posted by: soonerproud
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Nope, but Vista is much more different from XP than Xp was from 2k.
You are right about XP supporting much more hardware at the time than Vista supports now, and I'd say that the major underlying changes are the cause of that.
The problem with this statement is that win2k was not marketed and sold to the home consumer. Win2k certainly helped hardware and software companies get compatible products out the door faster for XP. But most home consumer products on the market at xp's release did not come with XP support out of the box. Downloading XP drivers was a no go for most people due to the slow speeds of dial-up.
Vista is very good, but Vista is really only suitable for new/high-end systems. The rest should stick with XP until they can afford new hardware.
People said the exact same thing about XP upon it's release.
What constitutes high-end? My laptop with a 1 GHz T5600 and 1 GB of memory runs Vista like butter. Don't tell me the average dual-core desktop can't handle it while my laptop in power saving mode can.Originally posted by: Arkaign
Vista is very good, but Vista is really only suitable for new/high-end systems. The rest should stick with XP until they can afford new hardware.
Originally posted by: StopSign
What constitutes high-end? My laptop with a 1 GHz T5600 and 1 GB of memory runs Vista like butter. Don't tell me the average dual-core desktop can't handle it while my laptop in power saving mode can.Originally posted by: Arkaign
Vista is very good, but Vista is really only suitable for new/high-end systems. The rest should stick with XP until they can afford new hardware.
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: StopSign
What constitutes high-end? My laptop with a 1 GHz T5600 and 1 GB of memory runs Vista like butter. Don't tell me the average dual-core desktop can't handle it while my laptop in power saving mode can.Originally posted by: Arkaign
Vista is very good, but Vista is really only suitable for new/high-end systems. The rest should stick with XP until they can afford new hardware.
That's surprising. Several new out-of-the-box 1gb dual-core Compaq/HP notebooks I've set up recently for clients have run very sluggishly with Vista.
Not surprising at all. Vista simply isn't that demanding of hardware. My laptop is also running Aero with transparency using a GMA950. It's barely any more sluggish than no transparency.Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: StopSign
What constitutes high-end? My laptop with a 1 GHz T5600 and 1 GB of memory runs Vista like butter. Don't tell me the average dual-core desktop can't handle it while my laptop in power saving mode can.
That's surprising. Several new out-of-the-box 1gb dual-core Compaq/HP notebooks I've set up recently for clients have run very sluggishly with Vista.
That's not really a big issue. My laptop has a 5400rpm drive and it's fine. It's definitely slower than 7200rpm drives but it's not the difference maker between "smooth" and "sluggish."Originally posted by: Noema
I guess it also depends on what type of HDD they have. Many laptops come with 5400RPM models which really kill performance.
Originally posted by: toadeater
Originally posted by: Scooby Doo
Well my reset button is getting a nice workout with Vista... rarely had to use it with XP. Stupid drivers. isgust;
You can't blame everything on the drivers. XP was never this bad when it was released. I don't remember so many crash and instability problems when I first upgraded to XP.
Maybe I have a faulty memory, but I honestly don't remember XP being this bad. There were minor things, mostly security issues, but not so many problems with hardware. Games ran significantly better than in 9x (maybe because I bought more RAM for XP?), and overall XP was actually more stable. Can you say the same thing about Vista?
Originally posted by: Smilin
Originally posted by: toadeater
Originally posted by: Scooby Doo
Well my reset button is getting a nice workout with Vista... rarely had to use it with XP. Stupid drivers. isgust;
You can't blame everything on the drivers. XP was never this bad when it was released. I don't remember so many crash and instability problems when I first upgraded to XP.
Maybe I have a faulty memory, but I honestly don't remember XP being this bad. There were minor things, mostly security issues, but not so many problems with hardware. Games ran significantly better than in 9x (maybe because I bought more RAM for XP?), and overall XP was actually more stable. Can you say the same thing about Vista?
Either your memory is short or your experiences atypical. XP had far worse compatibility problems when it was released than Vista. It also supported far fewer devices. Also Win9x was a lot faster on games than 2000 (or later XP) when running identical hardware. Many stuck with 9X when it came out simply because of the gaming. XP didn't start becoming faster at games until the hardware became fast enough that 9x couldn't take proper advantage of it.
Frankly if you are crashing or having stability problems it is far more likely to be your hardware or drivers than Vista. If you run Vista with signed drivers and don't cram it full of 3rd party kernel-level apps it is very stable. The big problem with Vista's stability is merely the perception of it. Few people troubleshoot a crash down to the real root cause. They just throw up their hands and say, "the os crashed!".