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.
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
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.
Originally posted by: Ausm
Originally posted by: nerp
I've been loving my Vista and gaming experience since Februrary. The 101.70 nvidia drivers leaked yesterday have made things even better. Sure, it's a beta driver, but I thought I'd chime in as one of those silent majority types with no problems and a wonderful experience.
New nvidia drivers? cool please post a link if not on the main Nvidia site
Ausm
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by: Ausm
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.
Umm I stating a fact from real world experience and having countless hours of experience working with numerous operating systems...if your having performance problems maybe it stems from your lack of computing knowledge?
AUsm
Originally posted by: Smilin
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.
If you own a computer shop and everyone's griping about Vista maybe you aren't loading it right (just kidding I hope)
Be aware that your experiences with UAC will also be different than most. Once you are done "moving in" to Vista UAC prompts are very rare. Same thing with performance. You're likely shipping the things out before indexing and caching are complete. Vista hits its stride after about a week. If run on high end hardware it juggles massive amounts of tasks much better than XP did. For "run my email" solutions, no you won't see much gain. Probably run a bit slower even just due to a larger footprint. If you're seeing lag just opening the start menu then something isn't right. You should fix that.
I've been running Vista since forever now and I can't stand going back to crusty XP boxes. It's like going back to NT 4 or something. I run it on very high end hardware though (as any new software should be) and I'm more savvy than most... I understand why you see 3.25GB of memory for instance, or why the statistic of "20 processes" alone doesn't determine anything about the load on a machine, or why you didn't really need to "tune" your XP to get it snappy.
I've got a good friend that until probably a year ago wouldn't run XP. On occasions when he had to he always had classic mode on. He went through the same thing when 2000 hit...clung to NT. I think I've finally rubbed off on him and convinced him that this time through jump in with both feet, leave classic mode off, grin and bear the learning curve for a month and you'll be happier. He did it and now I hear him gripe about XP as well.
Sorry you don't dig Vista and that you and your IT buddies just think it's XP with things shuffled around. (I would suggest getting better IT buddies if that's true). You appear to have your reasons which are far better than some general "hate MS" silliness. Dguy's point is still valid though. Go have a look around the forums. It's flooded with haters that aren't even running Vista.
It's a new OS. There will be curmudgeons for months (or years) to come that gripe about it. It's the same song and dance. There will also be those like me that work the kinks out of my new Vista installs then don't look back...except to chuckle at everyone who refuses to move forward and gripe about how bad *MY* computer is running :roll:
virus writers and hackers don't like those prompts either.Originally posted by: SickBeast
I don't like the prompts asking me to "allow" stuff.
Properly written software will only need to be installed by an administrator and run as a limited user. If your software won't run as a limited user, blame it on the software vendor.I also don't like having to run some stuff as "Administrator".
IMHO I don't think it's any faster, only offers a few more "native" security features, and the stability is identical to XP. To each his own though.Originally posted by: TwYsTeD
I find that vista is much faster, more secure, and more stable than XP ever was.
Originally posted by: Arkaign
* - Windows ME is an interesting example, because you had the various groups of people, the Microsoft haters, the people who thought that it was just awesome because it was new, etc. Yet it proved to be a genuine failure overall. Vista I think has a much greater chance of ultimate success, but it's going to take a little while. Part of the problem is how good XP has gotten over the years. XP hardly started well, but as hardware got faster, DX9 started gaining steam, and so forth, it has become arguably the most comprehensively successful Microsoft OS ever, perhaps other than DOS.
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.
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?
Originally posted by: fierydemise
Vista doesn't do well with 1GB? Huh? I ran Vista with 1GB before I decided to jump on a great RAM deal a week ago and it was defiantely faster then under XP.