Windows Vista, worse than Windows Me?

[rchiu]

I swear, sometimes I feel some people love vista more than their mother. It's like we have to say vista is perfect and wonderful or those ppl get offended.

To me, vista is not really a bad product. Lack of driver and compatibility is nothing new with brand spanking new OS'es. It's just not big of an improvement or technological advancement over XP other than eye candy. But what I have problem with is the approach and MS's mentality with vista.

1. Acting like a big brother with the digital right management. How is that a operating system's job to tell me what I can or cannot do with my multi media applications on the hardware I spent my hard earn money on?
2. Protecting their profit at the expense of my time and effort through all these activation scheme. I bought a legal copy of vista, my effort to comply with the Law should stop there. Why do I have to activate, reacitve when I update simple thing like memory just so MS can make a few more billions.
3. Putting more and more "features" and force me to use it. I don't need indexing, that's why I don't have google desktop installed. Why does Vista go and index everything I have on my pc wasting my time and my pc's resource. And don't tell me I can disable that. Why should I have to disable it, why can't I only install/enable the feature when I need to.
4. Single handedly remove support for standards like directsound3d. Yeah, great, millions of ppl spend hundreds of dollars to buy sound cards and sound systems to enjoy those sound effects in games, and MS take it away just like that without any consideration.

To me, MS is drunk with power. They make lots of money and they direct where the technology go. So they feel like they can do things and force things on people and all those "features" in vista just proof that.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: rchiu
I swear, sometimes I feel some people love vista more than their mother. It's like we have to say vista is perfect and wonderful or those ppl get offended.

I don't think anyone here thinks Vista is perfect.

1. Acting like a big brother with the digital right management. How is that a operating system's job to tell me what I can or cannot do with my multi media applications on the hardware I spent my hard earn money on?

This one always cracks me up. Your mp3s still play. You can still rip DVDs. You can still play divx/xvid. What is this evil DRM preventing you from doing that you could do in XP or another OS?

2. Protecting their profit at the expense of my time and effort through all these activation scheme. I bought a legal copy of vista, my effort to comply with the Law should stop there. Why do I have to activate, reacitve when I update simple thing like memory just so MS can make a few more billions.

Yes activation sucks. I'm not really sure how you calling Samir to re-activate your copy of Vista makes MS "a few more billions," as a matter of fact, I'd guess it's costing them a couple of bucks to pay that guy to talk to you. But whatever...if a 15 minute inconvenience gets you so riled up, I'd hate to see what happens to you waiting in line at the DMV.

3. Putting more and more "features" and force me to use it. I don't need indexing, that's why I don't have google desktop installed. Why does Vista go and index everything I have on my pc wasting my time and my pc's resource. And don't tell me I can disable that. Why should I have to disable it, why can't I only install/enable the feature when I need to.

I'm sorry you can't see the value of indexed searching. For me, it's wonderful. I love being able to create virtual folders for my clients containing every file and email relating to them based off of search results. Searching for a certain song, TV show, or tagged picture is great too. And why click all over the start menu to get to a program when you can just start typing the program name in the search box to launch it??? And I don't get why disabling it is a hassle to you but installing it "when you need to" (wtf) would be fine?

4. Single handedly remove support for standards like directsound3d. Yeah, great, millions of ppl spend hundreds of dollars to buy sound cards and sound systems to enjoy those sound effects in games, and MS take it away just like that without any consideration.

I don't really play games on my computers, so I'm not qualified to comment on this one, so I'll give you a pass on it.

To me, MS is drunk with power. They make lots of money and they direct where the technology go. So they feel like they can do things and force things on people and all those "features" in vista just proof that.

Overreact much?

 

[juktar]

Originally posted by: rchiu
I swear, sometimes I feel some people love vista more than their mother. It's like we have to say vista is perfect and wonderful or those ppl get offended.

To me, vista is not really a bad product. Lack of driver and compatibility is nothing new with brand spanking new OS'es. It's just not big of an improvement or technological advancement over XP other than eye candy. But what I have problem with is the approach and MS's mentality with vista.

1. Acting like a big brother with the digital right management. How is that a operating system's job to tell me what I can or cannot do with my multi media applications on the hardware I spent my hard earn money on?
2. Protecting their profit at the expense of my time and effort through all these activation scheme. I bought a legal copy of vista, my effort to comply with the Law should stop there. Why do I have to activate, reacitve when I update simple thing like memory just so MS can make a few more billions.
3. Putting more and more "features" and force me to use it. I don't need indexing, that's why I don't have google desktop installed. Why does Vista go and index everything I have on my pc wasting my time and my pc's resource. And don't tell me I can disable that. Why should I have to disable it, why can't I only install/enable the feature when I need to.
4. Single handedly remove support for standards like directsound3d. Yeah, great, millions of ppl spend hundreds of dollars to buy sound cards and sound systems to enjoy those sound effects in games, and MS take it away just like that without any consideration.

To me, MS is drunk with power. They make lots of money and they direct where the technology go. So they feel like they can do things and force things on people and all those "features" in vista just proof that.

(1) All Vista has the same code base. If they are going to integrate Media Players, CD Writer/DVD Writer software, and being able to record TV, there is no other choice. MS will get their pants sued off otherwise. And even if it was not in the OS (if someone was really stupid at MS), then would you want Sony to install it when you put that shiny new CD in there? And then maintain it?

(2) I don't think the activation is any more intrusive than XP

(3) Lowest common denomonator. The person with the opposite view has just as much right of the complaint. MS picked the one that would speed up searches.

(4) Have no idea. I may be off base, as I am not into sound all that much but wasn't directsound a MS "standard" and the new sound is more of an "open" standard?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: juktar


(1) All Vista has the same code base. If they are going to integrate Media Players, CD Writer/DVD Writer software, and being able to record TV, there is no other choice. MS will get their pants sued off otherwise. And even if it was not in the OS (if someone was really stupid at MS), then would you want Sony to install it when you put that shiny new CD in there? And then maintain it?

(2) I don't think the activation is any more intrusive than XP

(3) Lowest common denomonator. The person with the opposite view has just as much right of the complaint. MS picked the one that would speed up searches.

(4) Have no idea. I may be off base, as I am not into sound all that much but wasn't directsound a MS "standard" and the new sound is more of an "open" standard?

Define OS for me please? It's MS's choice to bundle all the Media player and other function with their OS, and I am fine with it. I am even fine with it if they implement DRM on those applications. But when they build DRM on the kernel level with Protected Media Path that force stuff like hardware driver to use DRM, I have big problem with it. Because that limits my hardware choice even if I do stuff that have nothing to do with copyright implication. I guess to see my point, you have to understand what OS mean and what it should do, and how MS implement their DRM.

And yes, Vista activation is more intrusive than XP. Vista check to see if you changed your system configuration and if you did, even for stuff like adding memory, you maybe forced to call in and reactivate.

For indexing, again, what is the definition of OS? The last time I check, Vista is advertised as an OS. Why all the additional stuff that's not OS related, again I am fine if you include it and not force me to use it or let the people who wants those add it and enable it.

That's why I say don't have problem with Vista as a technology per se, what I have problem with is MS's approach and philosophy in building their OS. They are building more and more stuff into their OS and forcing people to use it. In addition, they are building debatable laws like DRM into their OS. And limiting people who want flexibility in building a PC. I think it sucks to have a company who is suppose to control one piece of the computing pie to have that much power on how we build and use our PC.

 

[stash]

But when they build DRM on the kernel level with Protected Media Path that force stuff like hardware driver to use DRM, I have big problem with it. Because that limits my hardware choice even if I do stuff that have nothing to do with copyright implication. I guess to see my point, you have to understand what OS mean and what it should do, and how MS implement their DRM.

There is only one case where the OS forces the hardware to do anything. If you are viewing protected content. If those restrictions weren't in place, you wouldn't be able to view that content at all. If you don't want to view that content, the hardware will behave just like XP or anything else.

And yes, Vista activation is more intrusive than XP. Vista check to see if you changed your system configuration and if you did, even for stuff like adding memory, you maybe forced to call in and reactivate.

XP does the same thing. The algorithm was supposed to have been changed to make Vista more tolerant than XP, but I don't know the details.

 

[juktar]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Define OS for me please? It's MS's choice to bundle all the Media player and other function with their OS, and I am fine with it. I am even fine with it if they implement DRM on those applications. But when they build DRM on the kernel level with Protected Media Path that force stuff like hardware driver to use DRM, I have big problem with it. Because that limits my hardware choice even if I do stuff that have nothing to do with copyright implication. I guess to see my point, you have to understand what OS mean and what it should do, and how MS implement their DRM.

And yes, Vista activation is more intrusive than XP. Vista check to see if you changed your system configuration and if you did, even for stuff like adding memory, you maybe forced to call in and reactivate.

For indexing, again, what is the definition of OS? The last time I check, Vista is advertised as an OS. Why all the additional stuff that's not OS related, again I am fine if you include it and not force me to use it or let the people who wants those add it and enable it.

That's why I say don't have problem with Vista as a technology per se, what I have problem with is MS's approach and philosophy in building their OS. They are building more and more stuff into their OS and forcing people to use it. In addition, they are building debatable laws like DRM into their OS. And limiting people who want flexibility in building a PC. I think it sucks to have a company who is suppose to control one piece of the computing pie to have that much power on how we build and use our PC.

Microsoft decides what the defenition of their OS is. There are other alternatives, use them. Many people are already.

I am not sure why you are on this indexing thing either. Go install another OS and be happy if your not happy with MS.

MS current direction is integration. If that is your direction, then yes, indexing and DRM is part of the OS instead of some bolt on addition that would cause even more problems. Go to the audio forums and ask how they are doing with DRM. Nobody likes it, but if you want content, the producers will not give it to you without it.

Link please for the activation upon adding memory? I have done it. Mine did not have to reactivate.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Tegeril

Originally posted by: fierydemise
I really haven't seen what most people are talking about with poor gaming performance, I lose maybe 5% in some games. Hardly a deal breaker.

Yeah, I have to agree here. Granted, I have a ridiculous GPU, but anything I've been interested in playing runs happily and smoothly at 1920x1200 with the max settings and at least 2-4x AA or more.

Agreed. I've had no BSOD's or other major problems yet. It seems to me that anyone who wasn't born yesterday would understand that any new OS is going to have growing pains, to some degree or another. It's good that MS doesn't force people to buy their creations.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: juktar

Originally posted by: rchiu
Define OS for me please? It's MS's choice to bundle all the Media player and other function with their OS, and I am fine with it. I am even fine with it if they implement DRM on those applications. But when they build DRM on the kernel level with Protected Media Path that force stuff like hardware driver to use DRM, I have big problem with it. Because that limits my hardware choice even if I do stuff that have nothing to do with copyright implication. I guess to see my point, you have to understand what OS mean and what it should do, and how MS implement their DRM.

And yes, Vista activation is more intrusive than XP. Vista check to see if you changed your system configuration and if you did, even for stuff like adding memory, you maybe forced to call in and reactivate.

For indexing, again, what is the definition of OS? The last time I check, Vista is advertised as an OS. Why all the additional stuff that's not OS related, again I am fine if you include it and not force me to use it or let the people who wants those add it and enable it.

That's why I say don't have problem with Vista as a technology per se, what I have problem with is MS's approach and philosophy in building their OS. They are building more and more stuff into their OS and forcing people to use it. In addition, they are building debatable laws like DRM into their OS. And limiting people who want flexibility in building a PC. I think it sucks to have a company who is suppose to control one piece of the computing pie to have that much power on how we build and use our PC.

Microsoft decides what the defenition of their OS is. There are other alternatives, use them. Many people are already.

I am not sure why you are on this indexing thing either. Go install another OS and be happy if your not happy with MS.

MS current direction is integration. If that is your direction, then yes, indexing and DRM is part of the OS instead of some bolt on addition that would cause even more problems. Go to the audio forums and ask how they are doing with DRM. Nobody likes it, but if you want content, the producers will not give it to you without it.

Link please for the activation upon adding memory? I have done it. Mine did not have to reactivate.

Here is the thread on activation upon adding memory.

Oh I use different OS, have a couple of Linux machine and a Mac. But until all or at least a majority of software makers make their software available on alternative OS, we are really forced to use MS. I prey for the day that Linux reaches critical mass and gives major software maker enough incentive to write their software on Linux. I'd go 100% Linux once a decent number of major game is available there.

 

[stash]

Here is the thread on activation upon adding memory.

Did you read that thread?

Just in case anyone's still reading (or has this been resolved elsewhere?): I just did the VIA driver upgrade and the NVIDIA driver (as above) and got deactivated. No memory changes, but I did change the SATA setting in BIOS from RAID to IDE. That must've done it.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: stash

Here is the thread on activation upon adding memory.

Did you read that thread?

Just in case anyone's still reading (or has this been resolved elsewhere?): I just did the VIA driver upgrade and the NVIDIA driver (as above) and got deactivated. No memory changes, but I did change the SATA setting in BIOS from RAID to IDE. That must've done it.

Alrite, my point is vista activation scheme is anal and make you re-active for system changes. But if you want to make it sound like I was just talking about memory, then my bad.

 

[stash]

Alrite, my point is vista activation scheme is anal and make you re-active for system changes. But if you want to make it sound like I was just talking about memory, then my bad.

I'm not trying to make it sound like anything. I'm just pointing out that XP does the exact same thing, and according to the product group, Vista is more forgiving of hardware changes than XP.

I'm not a huge fan of activation and WGA, I don't know anyone who is. But what is the alternative? Microsoft is a business, and their ultimate goal is to make money and please shareholders.

 

[wiin]

I still have a Windows ME system. Been working perfectly in my custom built computer. What exactly is wrong with WinME or are you just rehashing what you read in the paper etc, etc?

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.

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: juktar
(1) All Vista has the same code base. If they are going to integrate Media Players, CD Writer/DVD Writer software, and being able to record TV, there is no other choice. MS will get their pants sued off otherwise. And even if it was not in the OS (if someone was really stupid at MS), then would you want Sony to install it when you put that shiny new CD in there? And then maintain it?

It's even simpler than that. None of the additional DRM scemes in Vista stop you from what you are doing today in XP or OSX or even Linux. In fact, all it does is allow you to play protected HD content. It doesn't stop you from doing anything. Without it, you simply won't be able to play the protected content. On any OS. I can't wait for Apple to announce support for protected Blu-Ray content. I fully expect the uproar of Apple adding all that evil DRM will be greeted by a deafening silence in comparison to Vista.

(2) I don't think the activation is any more intrusive than XP

If anything Vista's activation is less intrusive than XP. After XP SP2, you couldn't even connect to MS-Update to patch without activating first. Now, you can install Vista, Patch it all and still have 30 days before being required to activate, which is the same exact process under XP.

(4) Have no idea. I may be off base, as I am not into sound all that much but wasn't directsound a MS "standard" and the new sound is more of an "open" standard?

Direct Sound is still there. The problem is that it doesn't use hardware acceleration. For 90% of the market that's not a problem as most systems use an onboard sound solution as the sound quality has really improved over the years.

Fortunately, MS didn't totally cut off the ability to use acceleration hardware like the X-FI. Open-AL is the open source alternative that works with a lot of major games and works fine with Vista. Creative has embraced it fully and has drivers and wrappers available for the download. This is good news for people like me that have dedicated sound cards.

3. Putting more and more "features" and force me to use it. I don't need indexing, that's why I don't have google desktop installed. Why does Vista go and index everything I have on my pc wasting my time and my pc's resource. And don't tell me I can disable that. Why should I have to disable it, why can't I only install/enable the feature when I need to.

First, the only wasted resource is unused resources. The fact that Vista uses some memory, CPU cycles and disk space to accomplish these tasks to speed up other commonly used actions when the resources are available doesn't mean it's wasted. It means it's effectively being used. It would be more of a wast of your time if you had to wait for these sort of requests all of the time.

Of course, these features can be turned off if you really felt the need to do so. They are, after all, just services. Of course, performance would suffer and you would get no benefit what-so-ever by doing so other than being secure in your knowledge that you have some how rebeled against the evil empire known as Microsoft.

 

[Griswold]

Funny thread.

I like vista. Much better than XP indeed. Havent had a single BSOD since I installed it in the first week of february nor did I have to re-install it or anything. I'm royally pissed at the nvidia-situation and the quality of their drivers, but thats not microsofts fault nor does it really affects my productivity - its just annyoing. But i'll take it as a lesson well learned about buying products from nvidia.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: wiin
I still have a Windows ME system. Been working perfectly in my custom built computer. What exactly is wrong with WinME or are you just rehashing what you read in the paper etc, etc?

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've had plenty of rigs that have had ME on them in the past and I could never find many of the proplems that so many people complained about...it performed just as fast and reliable (as much as a Win9x OS can be) as Windows 98SE...but then again I might have been lucky or just had a decent way of setting it up...

But with that said, ME still sucks donkey balls 1000 times over compared to Vista...and if it wasn't for the poorer performance of the drivers (mainly Video card) it would make XP look just as bad too.

I went back to windows XP the other day...and promptly switched back to Vista Ultimate this morning...I just could put up with the sluggishness of XP compared to Vista in normal tasks..not to say that XP is slow, it isn't but Vista is just much snappier.

But this is just my opinion.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: wiin
I still have a Windows ME system. Been working perfectly in my custom built computer. What exactly is wrong with WinME or are you just rehashing what you read in the paper etc, etc?

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've had plenty of rigs that have had ME on them in the past and I could never find many of the proplems that so many people complained about...it performed just as fast and reliable (as much as a Win9x OS can be) as Windows 98SE...but then again I might have been lucky or just had a decent way of setting it up...

But with that said, ME still sucks donkey balls 1000 times over compared to Vista...and if it wasn't for the poorer performance of the drivers (mainly Video card) it would make XP look just as bad too.

I went back to windows XP the other day...and promptly switched back to Vista Ultimate this morning...I just could put up with the sluggishness of XP compared to Vista in normal tasks..not to say that XP is slow, it isn't but Vista is just much snappier.

But this is just my opinion.

I agree on all points. I never had any particular problems with ME, but I hated it just as much as 98se. The dos versions of Windows were just too primitive. They worked well enough for the time, but judging by what we have now they're garbage.

XP was the first modern O/S I used extensively. My first IBM computer was a 486dx50. I used dos in preference to Win 3.1 because it was a good bit faster, and lighter on resources. I then got out of computing until I bought a Dell P4 2.4ghz with XP on it. That's where I got most of my Windows experience. I used 98 and ME at work for light duty activities, but having XP really enlightened me on how good an O/S can be. That's when I started hating the dos versions of Windows :laugh:

Flash forward to now... I have Vista installed, and I've been loving it. I've had a couple of problems for sure, but not nearly as many as I expected. I think MS did a great job releasing a relatively bug free O/S. I'm dual booting XP and Vista, but I haven't been to my XP partition in well over a month. I'll probably end up deleting it soon and free up some space. XP's starting to feel primitive to me now, and I've really gotten used to a couple of the tools Vista provides.

 

[Arkaign]

Seems like a decent number of 'enthusiast' users like Vista on here. I wish it were so locally. I actually got yelled at yesterday for how bad Vista screwed up this lady's computer, her husband seemed to think that I was somehow responsible because I have a Vista poster and marketing materials here at my shop. I politely told him that (a)- I don't work for Microsoft, though I am a vendor, (b)- I didn't sell the Vista to her, and (c)- I don't recommend Vista on anything other than very high-end computers, and for those willing to learn the differences.

*sigh*

On my personal unit, I use XP about 9 out of 10 boots, and my Vista time is mostly researching other problems for Vista users. And there's nothing 'primitive' about an OS or app, so long as it meets your needs perfectly. What's primitive is wasting $$ on something that is literally worthless to you. I have to support Vista, that's why I bought it, even though I had gone through all the various betas back to early Longhorn builds.

 

[juktar]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: juktar

Originally posted by: rchiu
Define OS for me please? It's MS's choice to bundle all the Media player and other function with their OS, and I am fine with it. I am even fine with it if they implement DRM on those applications. But when they build DRM on the kernel level with Protected Media Path that force stuff like hardware driver to use DRM, I have big problem with it. Because that limits my hardware choice even if I do stuff that have nothing to do with copyright implication. I guess to see my point, you have to understand what OS mean and what it should do, and how MS implement their DRM.

And yes, Vista activation is more intrusive than XP. Vista check to see if you changed your system configuration and if you did, even for stuff like adding memory, you maybe forced to call in and reactivate.

For indexing, again, what is the definition of OS? The last time I check, Vista is advertised as an OS. Why all the additional stuff that's not OS related, again I am fine if you include it and not force me to use it or let the people who wants those add it and enable it.

That's why I say don't have problem with Vista as a technology per se, what I have problem with is MS's approach and philosophy in building their OS. They are building more and more stuff into their OS and forcing people to use it. In addition, they are building debatable laws like DRM into their OS. And limiting people who want flexibility in building a PC. I think it sucks to have a company who is suppose to control one piece of the computing pie to have that much power on how we build and use our PC.

Microsoft decides what the defenition of their OS is. There are other alternatives, use them. Many people are already.

I am not sure why you are on this indexing thing either. Go install another OS and be happy if your not happy with MS.

MS current direction is integration. If that is your direction, then yes, indexing and DRM is part of the OS instead of some bolt on addition that would cause even more problems. Go to the audio forums and ask how they are doing with DRM. Nobody likes it, but if you want content, the producers will not give it to you without it.

Link please for the activation upon adding memory? I have done it. Mine did not have to reactivate.

Here is the thread on activation upon adding memory.

Oh I use different OS, have a couple of Linux machine and a Mac. But until all or at least a majority of software makers make their software available on alternative OS, we are really forced to use MS. I prey for the day that Linux reaches critical mass and gives major software maker enough incentive to write their software on Linux. I'd go 100% Linux once a decent number of major game is available there.

There were like 2 people in that thread that had the problem. Most of it was chipset driver changes. That is hardly "proof", a bug maybe.

 

[JJ7575]

I must agree with some of the posts here that vista is much slower at startup at least(on hp laptops), and about the same on loading apps.


From testing i did on my own PC's at home one desktop(5.5 years old.. only upgraded to a larger HD and a newer vid card from then) and one laptop(3 weeks old)

( basic)Specs
Desktop
p4 2.0 (williamette)
intel 850E motherboard
512mb RDRam
320GB 7200rpm WD Pata HD w 8 mb cache
geforce fx5200 256mb ram
Turtle beach santa cruz sound card
software it loads at startup
Alcohol 120%, Windows One care live, Turtle beach controll panel/driver, Nvidia controll panel/driver

Laptop
Intel Core Duo T2250 1.73 ghz
Geforce go 7600 256mb
100 gb 7200 rpm Hitachi SATA150 8mb cache
1mb ddr2 pc5300
intel 945pm express
intergrated coentfax HD audio
software at startup
windows defender, hp quick launch buttons, norton internet security 2007, audio/video drivers


Ran 10 tests on each machine yesterday from POST to desktop(cold boots).Both boxes need to inupt username and password.

old XP machine 19 to 22 seconds from post to desktop

New laptop 65 to 73 seconds from post to desktop with factory install os and apps,
55 to 62 with clean install and the couple programs there at start up.

There is no reason for clean install of any os to take more than 30 seconds at most to get into. Yes i did a clean install from a disk after I purchased the laptop and the most current drivers.

I am not sure what is going on with these laptops, but I hope hp or someone looks into this situation with thier hardware and this performance.

I do like the newer interface in Vista but im seriously thinking about upgrading the laptop to XP or Ubuntu if i cant get vista to preform the way it should.

Yes i do know its not a real upgrade but at this point of 3 weeks of being slow almost any faster OS would seem like an upgrade.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: fierydemise
I really haven't seen what most people are talking about with poor gaming performance, I lose maybe 5% in some games. Hardly a deal breaker.

depends on your rig. i be on my computer i'd lose 90% of my xp performance due to low ram and 8800 card.

 

[juktar]

Originally posted by: JJ7575
I must agree with some of the posts here that vista is much slower at startup at least(on hp laptops), and about the same on loading apps.


From testing i did on my own PC's at home one desktop(5.5 years old.. only upgraded to a larger HD and a newer vid card from then) and one laptop(3 weeks old)

( basic)Specs
Desktop
p4 2.0 (williamette)
intel 850E motherboard
512mb RDRam
320GB 7200rpm WD Pata HD w 8 mb cache
geforce fx5200 256mb ram
Turtle beach santa cruz sound card
software it loads at startup
Alcohol 120%, Windows One care live, Turtle beach controll panel/driver, Nvidia controll panel/driver

Laptop
Intel Core Duo T2250 1.73 ghz
Geforce go 7600 256mb
100 gb 7200 rpm Hitachi SATA150 8mb cache
1mb ddr2 pc5300
intel 945pm express
intergrated coentfax HD audio
software at startup
windows defender, hp quick launch buttons, norton internet security 2007, audio/video drivers


Ran 10 tests on each machine yesterday from POST to desktop(cold boots).Both boxes need to inupt username and password.

old XP machine 19 to 22 seconds from post to desktop

New laptop 65 to 73 seconds from post to desktop with factory install os and apps,
55 to 62 with clean install and the couple programs there at start up.

There is no reason for clean install of any os to take more than 30 seconds at most to get into. Yes i did a clean install from a disk after I purchased the laptop and the most current drivers.

I am not sure what is going on with these laptops, but I hope hp or someone looks into this situation with thier hardware and this performance.

I do like the newer interface in Vista but im seriously thinking about upgrading the laptop to XP or Ubuntu if i cant get vista to preform the way it should.

Yes i do know its not a real upgrade but at this point of 3 weeks of being slow almost any faster OS would seem like an upgrade.

I think you may have finally asked the real question:

Is there a problem with HP laptops and Vista? Or is there a problem with laptops in general and Vista?

My experience with Vista has been on Desktops. I wonder if the mobile stuff is causeing some of the complaints about slowdowns.

 

[turbocozmo]

Sounds to me like vista isn't that bad (I haven't tried it yet myself) I think I'll stick with XP still for a little while longer. B)

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: juktar
I think you may have finally asked the real question:

Is there a problem with HP laptops and Vista? Or is there a problem with laptops in general and Vista?

My experience with Vista has been on Desktops. I wonder if the mobile stuff is causeing some of the complaints about slowdowns.

There is no problems that I am aware of with HP laptops and Vista. Myself and a guy I know have dv6000s and we haven't had any issues. Although I did have some small performance bugs fixed when I updated to the latest Intel wireless and GMA950 drivers.

The performance is just as fast as my desktop and I don't notice any sort of slowdowns. Although I do make sure to leave it plugged in occasionally on Balanced so it can do all of it's background stuff that it lets go while set to Power Saver on the road.