Windows Vista, worse than Windows Me?

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: ForumMaster
completly wrong. windows 9x weren't very good as they still had a DOS spine and thus weren't very stable. windows me was an early not ready windows 2000. windows 2000 was based on NT.

vista is based on NT code (2000/3/xp) with new code. and vista is still relatively new. give it a bit more time. it's looking like a great OS thus far for the most part.

Link19?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: juktar

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Lol I've been working in IT since the early 90s, and have a dozen or so industry certs including MCSE (from when NT 4 was the big deal). The performance problems are inherent in the product, as the systems were already loaded with Vista from the factory. On one of the systems, I reloaded using the supplied 'anytime upgrade' DVD, but only to limited success performance-wise. I have been using Vista heavily since build 5456, and things haven't gotten tremendously better anywhere along the way.

But, all insults aside, I think you were condescending and rude in your above post, and won't stoop to answering any further insults from you.

Just as an note, when you loaded XP, did you load all the bloat that the OEM loads from the factory?

Not with XP, but before I loaded XP, I formatted the system and reloaded a clean install of Vista, not from the mfg restore, but from the Vista DVD. The performance was improved, but still totally unsatisfactory.

So :

OEM default load of Vista that it shipped with : Staggeringly slow
Format/Fresh load of Vista from 'Anytime upgrade' DVD : Slow, but better
Format/Fresh load of XP Pro Retail : Fast, Stable, zero issues

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: ForumMaster
completly wrong. windows 9x weren't very good as they still had a DOS spine and thus weren't very stable. windows me was an early not ready windows 2000. windows 2000 was based on NT.

vista is based on NT code (2000/3/xp) with new code. and vista is still relatively new. give it a bit more time. it's looking like a great OS thus far for the most part.

This is absolutely false. ME = 9x kernel, it was basically Win98 Third Edition, with a crap early version of System Restore, and a more up to date IE and DX out of the box. WinME had/has little to do w/Win2k, or NT 5 as it should have been named (I still have an NT5 early beta cd somewhere, heh)

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: ForumMaster
completly wrong. windows 9x weren't very good as they still had a DOS spine and thus weren't very stable. windows me was an early not ready windows 2000. windows 2000 was based on NT.

vista is based on NT code (2000/3/xp) with new code. and vista is still relatively new. give it a bit more time. it's looking like a great OS thus far for the most part.

Link19?

No! Don't summon him!

:laugh:

 

[juktar]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Not with XP, but before I loaded XP, I formatted the system and reloaded a clean install of Vista, not from the mfg restore, but from the Vista DVD. The performance was improved, but still totally unsatisfactory.

So :

OEM default load of Vista that it shipped with : Staggeringly slow
Format/Fresh load of Vista from 'Anytime upgrade' DVD : Slow, but better
Format/Fresh load of XP Pro Retail : Fast, Stable, zero issues

Now don't take this the wrong way but.....

was it really slow or did it feel slow. There is a differrence. I have seen some people say Vista is slow, crappy, etc becuase they do not know the interface.

I find it hard to believe some of these posts unless there is a chipset driver problem somewhere.

My system is a Dell 8400: P4 3.4, 4gb RAM, Geforce 6800, 160 Gb Sata, SB Audigy 2ZS, DVD Writer.

Granted I have 4Gb RAM, but still. A friend of mine has 2Gb and it runs faster than mine with a Dual Core and a 7900 Video Card.

 

[juktar]

Originally posted by: Brazen


I load the Gator client and BonzaiiBuddy, just in case I need them. Is that wrong?

No, not at all.

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: ForumMaster
completly wrong. windows 9x weren't very good as they still had a DOS spine and thus weren't very stable. windows me was an early not ready windows 2000. windows 2000 was based on NT.

vista is based on NT code (2000/3/xp) with new code. and vista is still relatively new. give it a bit more time. it's looking like a great OS thus far for the most part.

Link19?

I'd almost completely forgotten about him

 

[Genx87]

Not even close

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: VashHT
Thats kinda funny, me and another guy at work jsut went through training with P3 machines that had 512mb of ram on mine and 256mb on his. Both of them were labeled "designed for Windows XP", and ran XP like complete utter crap. I'm not saying they would run vista better or anything, but a 1000$ laptop isn't exactly top of the line, and 1Gb of ram is not really enough for vista.

See, that's the bite, though. That same $1,000 dual-core notebook w/1gb ram will run XP like carl lewis on steroids. Vista is just ludicrously wasteful with memory. Just looking through folders or opening small apps (calc, hearts, etc) shouldn't be agonizingly slow w/1gb, yet it is.

Are you kidding me? How is actually using the memory wasteful? I'd think XP letting 1.5 of 2GBs to sit there collecting dust is wasteful. Having Vista precache applications into that 2GB so you arent hitting disk is useful.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: dguy6789
It is sad when people continue to bash and bash Vista just because they hate Microsoft. When one can get past the hate of Microsoft and jealousy of Mr. Gates or whatever their problem with them is, they will realize that Vista is a good step in the right direction. Pretty much everyone who uses Vista prefers it over XP. Vista is more stable, more secure, and more user friendly than XP.

This is all wrong, take off the tinfoil hat buddy. I have great respect for Bill Gates, his hard work, and his charity foundation. I like most Microsoft Products, but I view them all independently, which is the only logical way of forming viewpoints. I've been using Microsoft operating systems since Dos 3.0, and have to be honest, they all have their ups and downs. Not to mention that some get better with a few updates, and some don't. When XP launched, it didn't make sense for most people, as it was basically 2000 with a facelift and better DX support. It was only after DX9 gaming became popularly supported and people's hardware became powerful enough that it truly became an outstanding OS. Vista has a good chance of evolving into something decent as well.

I own a computer shop in a mid-sized town, and the feedback on Vista has been uniformly negative. Sitting on the bench to my left is a new Gateway 5408 C2D box that someone brought in along with a retail WinXP Home package, with the instructions to get Vista "The hell off of my computer!". I get this 2-3 times a week now. My first efforts are to explain the differences in Vista, what UAC means, but usually they insist on getting rid of it.

Vista is technically better than ME, but in terms of what it really offers the average joe who just plays a game once in a while or browses the internet .. it just makes things needlessly confusing. Why spend so many years cultivating an interface layout only to abandon it purely for the pursuit of change.

In my opinion, which has echoed by most of my IT colleagues upon sharing, is that Vista and Office 07 are examples of an exaggerated attempt to make things seem different to justify the price. Move things around, hide things, but the same basic elements remain.

Probably the single largest issue that exists is UAC though, it nags the piss out of you at every turn. I'm not very confident that it will even come close to stemming the time against malware/spyware/etc.

And performance-wise, it's an absolute embarassment. I've had brand-new out of the box Intel Dual-Core premium notebooks, with 1gb DDR2, and Vista runs like petrified dog crap on them. Click start .. wait .. wait ... wait .... oh wow there's the start menu! Ditto with opening something like Word. There's just no excuse for a brand-new $1000 notebook to run so terribly. After formatting and loading XP, it's like night and day. Vista on 1gb runs like XP w/192mb. Or Win2k w/64mb. Or 98 w/16mb. Or 95 w/8mb. On my personal system, though it for whatever reason sees my 4gb as 3.25, it still seems notably more sluggish than my tuned XP install. I run 20 processes total on my XP install at most times, and there's almost zero lag in the interface or opening apps.

Anyway, please realize that genuine criticism of Vista can have absolutely nothing to do with Bill Gates or even Microsoft the corporation, but rather just the product itself. I have no problem with those who like it, but you have to realize that not everyone will.

And performance-wise, it's an absolute embarassment. I've had brand-new out of the box Intel Dual-Core premium notebooks, with 1gb DDR2, and Vista runs like petrified dog crap on them. Click start .. wait .. wait ... wait .... oh wow there's the start menu! Ditto with opening something like Word. There's just no excuse for a brand-new $1000 notebook to run so terribly.

Performance is an embarassment??? I think Vista blows away XP in performance. Oh BTW, it is well documented that in order for Vista to run smoothly you need at least 2 gig of RAM.

Ausm

I think maybe you're hypnotized by the marketing mumbo-jumbo. I have 4gb of PC8000 DDR2, and currently clocked @ 3.15Ghz E6600, and my XP loadset runs miles faster than my Vista side. Adding insult to injury, my Vista install is on a 74gb raptor, while my XP is on a cheapo 400gb seagate pata drive. There is almost no delay in opening anything on the XP side, while Vista runs about like you'd expect on XP w/512mb.

I find that utterly amazing considering I ran Vista RC2 on an A64 3000+, 1.5GB ram, 6800GT, and a 1st gen 74GB Raptor and it was very snappy and fast.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: nerp
I'm having a hard time accepting the fact that you guys with c2d laptops are counting the seconds go by when you click the orb button.

I have a puny celeron M 440 laptop @ 1.8ghz with 2GB of ram and i almost have a hard time telling the difference with things like basic GUI rendering and loading MS word than on my opteron box in my sig. Something sounds seriously broken if my celeron M is buttery smooth. It shipped with Vista Basic and 512mb installed. That was pretty painful, but 2GB later I've got home premium through anytime upgrade and the Vista experience is absolutley wonderful.

Do these struggling core2duo notebooks come with Vista or XP? What kind of driver support do you have? Just for the sake of specs, Vista detected all my hardware with a fresh install out of the box. It has an Intel GMA950 chipset and the latest Intel driver seems pretty good. I've also seen two updates via windowsupdate to my Conexant audio drivers. I've also not done any signifcant "tweaking" and swapfile, superfetch and indexing services are all going. The one thing I don't use is system restore and the security center. UAC is enabled.

Nice to hear that it's running well for you The notebooks I referenced were brand new Toshiba and HP units, and both shipped with Vista, ironically with the same video chipset you have. Both have dual-channel DDR2 as well. It's just amazing how sluggish they were with Vista. After formatting and loading clean XP, they run so much better it's almost like they were different units entirely.

Make sure they didnt come with a 4200rpm drive. That drive will make any setup run like a 486 on a bad day.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: nerp
I'm having a hard time accepting the fact that you guys with c2d laptops are counting the seconds go by when you click the orb button.

I have a puny celeron M 440 laptop @ 1.8ghz with 2GB of ram and i almost have a hard time telling the difference with things like basic GUI rendering and loading MS word than on my opteron box in my sig. Something sounds seriously broken if my celeron M is buttery smooth. It shipped with Vista Basic and 512mb installed. That was pretty painful, but 2GB later I've got home premium through anytime upgrade and the Vista experience is absolutley wonderful.

Do these struggling core2duo notebooks come with Vista or XP? What kind of driver support do you have? Just for the sake of specs, Vista detected all my hardware with a fresh install out of the box. It has an Intel GMA950 chipset and the latest Intel driver seems pretty good. I've also seen two updates via windowsupdate to my Conexant audio drivers. I've also not done any signifcant "tweaking" and swapfile, superfetch and indexing services are all going. The one thing I don't use is system restore and the security center. UAC is enabled.

Nice to hear that it's running well for you The notebooks I referenced were brand new Toshiba and HP units, and both shipped with Vista, ironically with the same video chipset you have. Both have dual-channel DDR2 as well. It's just amazing how sluggish they were with Vista. After formatting and loading clean XP, they run so much better it's almost like they were different units entirely.

Make sure they didnt come with a 4200rpm drive. That drive will make any setup run like a 486 on a bad day.

Both 5400rpm Sata drives :

Here's the Toshiba :

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834114310

and the HP :

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834147406

Both ran extremely poorly with the default Vista OEM load, and by that I mean the time from power on to a windows desktop, time to open start menu, time to display context boxes (right-click on desktop, etc), time to launch apps, etc. I'm guessing by your experience with the 1.5gb system, that the extra 512mb would help a bit. The overall experience with these units was extremely disheartening. Luckily each of them run XP with alacrity, and the clients were extremely pleased with the results. Boo to Toshiba for not hosting XP drivers for their 135 series online though, it was a b%tch finding all of them.

 

[tatteredpotato]

^^You're comparing an OEM install to a DIY install

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: nerp
I'm having a hard time accepting the fact that you guys with c2d laptops are counting the seconds go by when you click the orb button.

I have a puny celeron M 440 laptop @ 1.8ghz with 2GB of ram and i almost have a hard time telling the difference with things like basic GUI rendering and loading MS word than on my opteron box in my sig. Something sounds seriously broken if my celeron M is buttery smooth. It shipped with Vista Basic and 512mb installed. That was pretty painful, but 2GB later I've got home premium through anytime upgrade and the Vista experience is absolutley wonderful.

Do these struggling core2duo notebooks come with Vista or XP? What kind of driver support do you have? Just for the sake of specs, Vista detected all my hardware with a fresh install out of the box. It has an Intel GMA950 chipset and the latest Intel driver seems pretty good. I've also seen two updates via windowsupdate to my Conexant audio drivers. I've also not done any signifcant "tweaking" and swapfile, superfetch and indexing services are all going. The one thing I don't use is system restore and the security center. UAC is enabled.

Nice to hear that it's running well for you The notebooks I referenced were brand new Toshiba and HP units, and both shipped with Vista, ironically with the same video chipset you have. Both have dual-channel DDR2 as well. It's just amazing how sluggish they were with Vista. After formatting and loading clean XP, they run so much better it's almost like they were different units entirely.

Make sure they didnt come with a 4200rpm drive. That drive will make any setup run like a 486 on a bad day.

Both 5400rpm Sata drives :

Here's the Toshiba :

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834114310

and the HP :

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834147406

Both ran extremely poorly with the default Vista OEM load, and by that I mean the time from power on to a windows desktop, time to open start menu, time to display context boxes (right-click on desktop, etc), time to launch apps, etc. I'm guessing by your experience with the 1.5gb system, that the extra 512mb would help a bit. The overall experience with these units was extremely disheartening. Luckily each of them run XP with alacrity, and the clients were extremely pleased with the results. Boo to Toshiba for not hosting XP drivers for their 135 series online though, it was a b%tch finding all of them.

Well truth be told my wife was running a very similar machine A64 3000+, 1GB ram, 6600GT, and a 300GB Segate 7200.9 and didnt have any issues.

I find it hard to believe these core 2 duo machines are having problems chugging through Vista considering the setups I tested it on.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: BlameCanada
^^You're comparing an OEM install to a DIY install

Actually, no. Read my previous posts.

The units shipped with overbloated OEM loads of Vista and ran horribly.

I formatted and loaded clean Vista from the Vista DVD, using the license key on the units, with zero Toshiba or HP garbage on them. Microsoft was very nice about activation, btw.

After this step, performance was noticably better, but still unsatisfactory.

Final step : format again, load clean XP on them. Finding all of the drivers for the Toshiba unit was a pita, but the end results on each unit were extremely good.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: nerp
I'm having a hard time accepting the fact that you guys with c2d laptops are counting the seconds go by when you click the orb button.

I have a puny celeron M 440 laptop @ 1.8ghz with 2GB of ram and i almost have a hard time telling the difference with things like basic GUI rendering and loading MS word than on my opteron box in my sig. Something sounds seriously broken if my celeron M is buttery smooth. It shipped with Vista Basic and 512mb installed. That was pretty painful, but 2GB later I've got home premium through anytime upgrade and the Vista experience is absolutley wonderful.

Do these struggling core2duo notebooks come with Vista or XP? What kind of driver support do you have? Just for the sake of specs, Vista detected all my hardware with a fresh install out of the box. It has an Intel GMA950 chipset and the latest Intel driver seems pretty good. I've also seen two updates via windowsupdate to my Conexant audio drivers. I've also not done any signifcant "tweaking" and swapfile, superfetch and indexing services are all going. The one thing I don't use is system restore and the security center. UAC is enabled.

Nice to hear that it's running well for you The notebooks I referenced were brand new Toshiba and HP units, and both shipped with Vista, ironically with the same video chipset you have. Both have dual-channel DDR2 as well. It's just amazing how sluggish they were with Vista. After formatting and loading clean XP, they run so much better it's almost like they were different units entirely.

Make sure they didnt come with a 4200rpm drive. That drive will make any setup run like a 486 on a bad day.

Both 5400rpm Sata drives :

Here's the Toshiba :

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834114310

and the HP :

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834147406

Both ran extremely poorly with the default Vista OEM load, and by that I mean the time from power on to a windows desktop, time to open start menu, time to display context boxes (right-click on desktop, etc), time to launch apps, etc. I'm guessing by your experience with the 1.5gb system, that the extra 512mb would help a bit. The overall experience with these units was extremely disheartening. Luckily each of them run XP with alacrity, and the clients were extremely pleased with the results. Boo to Toshiba for not hosting XP drivers for their 135 series online though, it was a b%tch finding all of them.

Well truth be told my wife was running a very similar machine A64 3000+, 1GB ram, 6600GT, and a 300GB Segate 7200.9 and didnt have any issues.

I find it hard to believe these core 2 duo machines are having problems chugging through Vista considering the setups I tested it on.

Well, in the case of that A64, you don't have shared memory, you have a dedicated 3d video device, and you have a 7200rpm drive with better cache and probably at least 2x the areal density, so it's not altogether surprising that performance would be better.

In these notebooks, it wasn't my place to quantify or complain about the performance, it was the client's experience and input that led to these observations and decisions. In each case the client was absolutely unsatisfied with the unit as compared to previous ones, and was unhappy until XP was in place, and apps/data were accessible with at least the same performance as before. With Vista on that hardware, simply opening Outlook or getting to the documents folder, or opening the start menu was an ordeal. Booting was laughable, and the little toilet swirly was a constant companion as the system oozed along through whatever it was trying to do.

I'm happy for people that have good experiences with Vista. I've been using the various builds of it for a very long time, and haven't run across very many people who have much good to say about it yet. I think it will definitely get there, as drivers/software/hardware catch up to it. XP launched when 1ghz / 128mb systems were still on the shelves, and it also ran like butt on lower-end hardware compared to 98 or 2000. XP has come a very long way, and I fully expect Vista to be fantastic in a year or two. For now, I don't actively recommend it to anyone, but for those that use it and like it, good for them. Even on my personal system, a 3+ghz C2D w/4gb DDR2, it doesn't give me the overall satisfaction of my tuned XP install, so I boot it up much less. No offense intended by my observations and experience, there are also people out there that still prefer Win2k to XP, and I see their point if it meets their needs. To each his own.

 

[Nickyct]

Originally posted by: Pabster
What a well thought out and supported opinion.

We can all agree Windows ME was a disaster.

Windows Vista, however, is great.

I installed vista on mine and it has been working flawlessly.
I have one comment about ME though. I know it wasn't the best but at least you
could install on more than one PC.

 

[Xorp]

If you think Vista is as bad as ME, well then, you've obviously never used ME.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Xorp
If you think Vista is as bad as ME, well then, you've obviously never used ME.

Hehe, I've suffered under ME The really weird thing about ME was, that it would suck majorly on 9 out of 10 pcs, and then run mysteriously great on the 10th .. odd.

I like Vista better than ME, but only slightly.

IMHO .. ME < 95 (all) < Vista < 98 < 98SE < Win2k < WinXP

 

[stash]

You liked 98 and 98SE better than Vista?

I don't see how you can put 2000 and XP ahead of 98 but not Vista. Vista has a lot more in common with 2000 and XP than 98.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: stash
You liked 98 and 98SE better than Vista?

I don't see how you can put 2000 and XP ahead of 98 but not Vista. Vista has a lot more in common with 2000 and XP than 98.

I see what you mean in terms of code and structure, but I was just giving my opinion on how I felt about the OSes at hand. I haven't been this unhappy with a Microsoft OS since ME.

2k introduced a general-use ready OS based on the stable NT platform, and it didn't take a bleeding edge PC to run just as fast as 98.

XP broadened hardware and multimedia support, and although it was more resource-hungry than 2k, it was a dramatic improvement over WinME, which was still shipping with the majority of retail PCs. The more savvy users had already moved to 2k for the most part. Or stayed with 98se.

Vista comes at a difficult time, primarily because of the outstanding job Microsoft has done with XP over the years.

I deeply respect the patience and knowledge you display here in aiding people with OS and other issues. It speaks volumes of the many great minds employed by Microsoft, and particularly of your own character. Regardless, and indeed utterly unrelated, remains my disenchantment with Vista as an OS. I still maintain that it will improve with time, as the OS and drivers evolve, and as PCs become more powerful.

Cheers.

 

[stash]

Well I appreciate the comments, and your comments are fair. Competition with ourselves has always been one of our biggest problems.

 

[jlbenedict]

how dare someone compare Vista to the likes of POS Windows ME or Windows 98

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: BlameCanada
I don't think there is any in between in this argument. Those that use it love it, and then some say, well just look at the OP.

There were people whom loved Windows ME too.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: KeypoX
omg !!! i have been thinking about posting this for the last few days ... i swear i didnt read it anywhere else either


gotta say i just wiped vista out and got xp pro back in and god it feels so so so much faster and ya know what it is hahahahahaha

so long vista for a little bit atleast ... once hardware gets better we wont mind the major blow on current/ last few years hardware

my favorite vista excuse ..... drum roll please ..... drivers

People were saying the same thing about XP when it came out too: "Wait for better XP drivers"