Okay, I've finally got to replace my laptop, it's worn out. I think I might have waited a bit long as just about everything I've seen on line is loaded with Vista and I've been told it's a total sh!t-hook for an operating system.
How bad is it?
This actually depends on what you plan on doing with it. For general purposes, I actually like it. Getting used to it is the biggest problems. Now that the SP1 has been released, and a lot of the bugs have been fixed. The biggest problems that people are having with it are mostly associated around these changes that they are not used to. Beyond this, the new security measures cause a few pains, primarily to those who like to pirate things, and the new setup for drivers can cause problems with running older hardware. Beyond this, I would say I have had a really positive experience. I also love the parental controls available with vista. Next best thing to having key logger.
Apparently bad enough for Microsoft to extend support for XP for 5 more years.
http://www.news.com/2100-1016_3-6152952.html
"Under Microsoft's Support Lifecyle Policy, consumers and businesses both receive "mainstream" support for their products. XP Home Edition and XP Media Center will see mainstream support end in April 2009, which includes paid support, security updates, design changes and feature requests.
Once mainstream support expires, the five-year extended support is due to kick in. Previously, XP Home and XP Media Center consumers would migrate to self-help support for eight years, after their mainstream support ended."
Sorry, a small edit. I've got friends that are just fine with Vista. I wouldn't be skeered.
Here are a couple of links for some tricks.
http://vista4beginners.com/tips-and-tricks
http://vistahowto.blogspot.com/
I finally found the old thread on this and looks like a simple enough fix to put XP on a machine.
I'm not much of a geek. I buy a computer and use it till it wears out. I had thought about a MacBook Pro as the Mac OS kicks donkey. But I'm not paying for it so not my choice.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
Apparently bad enough for Microsoft to extend support for XP for 5 more years.
http://www.news.com/2100-1016_3-6152952.html
"Under Microsoft's Support Lifecyle Policy, consumers and businesses both receive "mainstream" support for their products. XP Home Edition and XP Media Center will see mainstream support end in April 2009, which includes paid support, security updates, design changes and feature requests.
Once mainstream support expires, the five-year extended support is due to kick in. Previously, XP Home and XP Media Center consumers would migrate to self-help support for eight years, after their mainstream support ended."
Sorry, a small edit. I've got friends that are just fine with Vista. I wouldn't be skeered.
My bet on this would be for an expected slow phase out of XP. There are still a lot of hard core XP'rs out there, much like there were on 98 (I refused to switch over to XP up until last year). Now there is a lot of bad publicity on Vista because of the hard cores that is unwarranted. MS may be anticipating a longer changeover due to this. But, this is my personal opinion.
I have found some of that myself. My next door neighbor is a geek and he hates anything which comes out of Microsoft, especially anything new, for no other reason than it's "Big Brother".
No problems here, I actually prefer it because it seems to solve problems better than XP. It also appears to be more stable, never had a crash yet.
Good luck.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I have found some of that myself. My next door neighbor is a geek and he hates anything which comes out of Microsoft, especially anything new, for no other reason than it's "Big Brother".
that pretty much sums up 95% of the arguments against Vista.
Good topic. I have an old Dell computer thats about 5 years or so old now, perhaps 6. It seems to really slow down when I do major image stuff with photoshop. Plus I am tired of sitting in one spot with this desktop. Just yesterday at the TN meeting I asked the geek squad there what I should get. They said the Mac Book Pro. Just looked up the pice... geez thats a fancy price, about 2,800. May have to wait till I finish my casino mural project late summer. But I do hear that for people that do lots of visual arts stuff that Mac is a good system, and I need a lot of speed. But gosh thats a pretty penny for a laptop. Plus I want to upgrade from my little 26" flat screen to a 42" over the fireplace lol. And if I got that then I would of course want a Blue Ray player and a decent sound system... All together your starting to get around the 6,000$ plus mark. Descisions, descisions. Danged consumer society always coming up with new toys, I mean, necessities.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I have found some of that myself. My next door neighbor is a geek and he hates anything which comes out of Microsoft, especially anything new, for no other reason than it's "Big Brother".
that pretty much sums up 95% of the arguments against Vista.
So are you saying you like it or are you an anti MS guy.
I'm sure inteller is a MS fanboy who will buy everything they make...
I like microsoft, without them a lot of IT people would be without a job. Vista's main problems were that it was rushed to market without some of the intended features like winfs. It also needed a lot more testing, especially on the graphic card side. Problems with ATI and NVidia drivers account for a vast majority of the crashes. It also requires significantly more horsepower than XP so it's generally something to get with a new PC and not installing on the PC you bought 2 years ago.
that's funny, my 8600GT has never crashed...sounds more like a PEBCAK error.
when XP came out people said "oh this is crap, i'm sticking to 2000"
when Windows 7 comes out people will say "oh this is crap I'm sticking to Vista"
the perception of Vista being slower than XP is is just that. If I ran Windows 98 on a PC that came with XP it would make XP look slow too.
so you can choose to stick with a circa 2001 OS that has had to have loads of **** patched onto it to make it secure and stable, or you can get a modern OS.
Vista is horrible. It actually makes Windows ME (remember that pile of crap?) look like a masterpiece.
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
Vista is horrible. It actually makes Windows ME (remember that pile of crap?) look like a masterpiece.
Hmm did you ever use ME for an extended period of time? I would guess not.
The biggest problem with vista is drivers for older hardware, most ner stuff (released in the last 6-12 months) your pretty save. Key word there is released not manufactured, since ATI and Nvida take forever to phase out older modules.
Also cant blame it all on Microsoft, the hardware vender's arn't writing drivers for there older hardware so people have to upgrade, not much Microsoft can do about that.
Some things to look out for when buying a laptop if it doesn't have 2 gigs of ram pop onto http://www.newegg.com and order ram to upgrade your system, if you need help let me know, no since paying Geekwhatever 90+ an hour for a simple memory upgrade. Also try to get one with nvida or ATI graphics instead of Intel's solutions.
Either way good luck.
PS: On laptops Vista's power management systems kicks XP's butt, so that along made me decide to keep Vista. That and Photoshop to me runs better on Vista. (Yeah I know the photoshop was another user but still a valid point.)
PSS: Its hard to justify the cost of a mac for "graphics work" now that both OS's run on the same hardware. One thing most graphic artistes don't tell you is even on the makes they add extra ram and higher RPM harddrives when possible to make the experience better.
I have Vista on one machine and really do like it. Took a little getting used to, but is not drastically different from XP.
Obviously, it will take a small amount of time for hardware makers to come out with drivers for their products to work with Vista, but I have yet to have an issue with anything.
I use a cheap laptop mostly for spreadsheets and text, so speed isn't an issue. It's loaded with Vista Home Deluxe and generally works well. But there are some programs that do not work well on this machine. I tried GIMP and Pixia for photo editing, but they locked up continually. The Avast anti-virus worked well until they issued an upgrade earlier this week. It locked up the machine and it refused to boot until Avast was removed.
So, in my limited experience, Vista is a mixed bag. I've done some minor tinkering with Damn Small Linux and Ubuntu on one of my older machines. I can see that eventually this one will go that route too.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
I use a cheap laptop mostly for spreadsheets and text, so speed isn't an issue. It's loaded with Vista Home Deluxe and generally works well. But there are some programs that do not work well on this machine. I tried GIMP and Pixia for photo editing, but they locked up continually. The Avast anti-virus worked well until they issued an upgrade earlier this week. It locked up the machine and it refused to boot until Avast was removed.
So, in my limited experience, Vista is a mixed bag. I've done some minor tinkering with Damn Small Linux and Ubuntu on one of my older machines. I can see that eventually this one will go that route too.
the problems you list were not vista's fault, rather crappy applications. I concur that avast cannot figure out vista. I had to switch back to avg because they suck on vista. avast was gobbling more and more memory with each release anyways
I didn't think about the power problem with Vista. It does take a significant amount compaired to XP. But, it is able to handle more. Hence the reason I didn't think to mention it. XP wouldn't be able to handle my system, one of the main reasons that I decided to upgrade.
As far as Avast goes, I haven't had any problems with it. Don't know if I just got lucky with my setup, if it's because of the added power of my machine (I'm a gamer and built my computer to take on the biggest games out there), or if it's because I am running 64.
quote:
Originally posted by custosnox
I didn't think about the power problem with Vista. It does take a significant amount compaired to XP. But, it is able to handle more. Hence the reason I didn't think to mention it. XP wouldn't be able to handle my system, one of the main reasons that I decided to upgrade.
As far as Avast goes, I haven't had any problems with it. Don't know if I just got lucky with my setup, if it's because of the added power of my machine (I'm a gamer and built my computer to take on the biggest games out there), or if it's because I am running 64.
x64 has better tolerance for crappy applications, especilly if they are being run WOW64. Microsoft puts tigher tolerances on native 64-bit apps, so Avast may not bei ****ting on itself in that environment. I haven't tried avast on my x64 boxes, just one x86 box.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I'm sure inteller is a MS fanboy who will buy everything they make...
I like microsoft, without them a lot of IT people would be without a job. Vista's main problems were that it was rushed to market without some of the intended features like winfs. It also needed a lot more testing, especially on the graphic card side. Problems with ATI and NVidia drivers account for a vast majority of the crashes. It also requires significantly more horsepower than XP so it's generally something to get with a new PC and not installing on the PC you bought 2 years ago.
But let's not blame MS for that. The vendors knew full well this was coming, and Microsoft told them and gave them technical specs to be ready for it. They weren't, but yet consumers blame MS. It's not MS's job to make sure the vendors driver software works with their OS, it's the vendor.
And it only requires more horsepower if you want all the fancy 'Aero' bells and whistles. Turn that off, and it's actually pretty close to XP as far as requirements go.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I'm sure inteller is a MS fanboy who will buy everything they make...
I like microsoft, without them a lot of IT people would be without a job. Vista's main problems were that it was rushed to market without some of the intended features like winfs. It also needed a lot more testing, especially on the graphic card side. Problems with ATI and NVidia drivers account for a vast majority of the crashes. It also requires significantly more horsepower than XP so it's generally something to get with a new PC and not installing on the PC you bought 2 years ago.
But let's not blame MS for that. The vendors knew full well this was coming, and Microsoft told them and gave them technical specs to be ready for it. They weren't, but yet consumers blame MS. It's not MS's job to make sure the vendors driver software works with their OS, it's the vendor.
And it only requires more horsepower if you want all the fancy 'Aero' bells and whistles. Turn that off, and it's actually pretty close to XP as far as requirements go.
Microsoft still signs off on those drivers and should've made sure the OS shipped with capable drivers out the door. When XP shipped, you didn't have to wait 6months or more for drivers to be available for legacy hardware, they came with the OS.
The whole "driver signing" thing is pretty dumb idea too. Microsoft is really just saying "yeah, we looked at it" NOT "we are sure this thing works."
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Microsoft still signs off on those drivers and should've made sure the OS shipped with capable drivers out the door.
WRONG! Microsoft only inspects drivers submitted to WHQL. Even then they only inspect the driver for how it adheres to the WDM, they don't debug the driver. Anyone can write a driver for windows and 32-bit drivers don't have to be digitally signed. Digital signatures are simply issued once a driver has passed WHQL. They do nothing towards the "quality" of the driver.
If device manufacturers would have always written good quality drivers from the get go, there wouldn't even be a need for WHQL.
My god do some basic research next time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHQL
I use two Vista machines. One I have at home, and one at work. Both computers have done 95% of I have expected them to do. The other 5% come from having to wait on a driver upgrade for our plotter at work. So now they do 100% of what I expect them to do. I like Vista and don't miss XP at all. Both computers are graphics-intensive computers installed with Vista Ultimate. Don't go cheap when purchasing a Vista computer. Three people I know paid less than grand for their Vista laptops with AMD processors. Those three people are fuming mad over their computers performance (crashes).
quote:
Originally posted by Dana431
I use two Vista machines. One I have at home, and one at work. Both computers have done 95% of I have expected them to do. The other 5% come from having to wait on a driver upgrade for our plotter at work. So now they do 100% of what I expect them to do. I like Vista and don't miss XP at all. Both computers are graphics-intensive computers installed with Vista Ultimate. Don't go cheap when purchasing a Vista computer. Three people I know paid less than grand for their Vista laptops with AMD processors. Those three people are fuming mad over their computers performance (crashes).
eh, none of my vista boxes cost over $1000 (maybe that for all combined) and they run just fine. the biggest area of disappointement people will see is in the graphics area. But microsoft said that Vista would be very graphics intensive and that you'd need a good card to see all the bells and whistles.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Dana431
I use two Vista machines. One I have at home, and one at work. Both computers have done 95% of I have expected them to do. The other 5% come from having to wait on a driver upgrade for our plotter at work. So now they do 100% of what I expect them to do. I like Vista and don't miss XP at all. Both computers are graphics-intensive computers installed with Vista Ultimate. Don't go cheap when purchasing a Vista computer. Three people I know paid less than grand for their Vista laptops with AMD processors. Those three people are fuming mad over their computers performance (crashes).
eh, none of my vista boxes cost over $1000 (maybe that for all combined) and they run just fine. the biggest area of disappointement people will see is in the graphics area. But microsoft said that Vista would be very graphics intensive and that you'd need a good card to see all the bells and whistles.
Im glad to hear somebody else is having a good experience with Vista computers. I have felt like Apple has done a great job in marketing their operating system/computers as being superior. Based on my experience, I think its more of a Ford versus Chevy comparison than a Ford versus Yugo comparison.
I saw an earlier post talk about "Big Brother" software. Autodesk comes to mind more than Microsoft.
Dell's online store for small business (//%22http://www.dell.com/content/default.aspx?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd%22) offers new laptops with XP Home or XP Pro standard, and they'll throw in the media for Vista.
I don't see a compelling reason to switch, and having seen a brand new laptop with Vista take 10 minutes to boot, I'm happy to stay with XP.
oh yeah, Autodesk is up there....but Adobe is actually worse.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
Dell's online store for small business (//%22http://www.dell.com/content/default.aspx?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd%22) offers new laptops with XP Home or XP Pro standard, and they'll throw in the media for Vista.
I don't see a compelling reason to switch, and having seen a brand new laptop with Vista take 10 minutes to boot, I'm happy to stay with XP.
omg, thank you for the FUD. 10 minutes to boot? something was obviously wrong with the laptop other than vista.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Microsoft still signs off on those drivers and should've made sure the OS shipped with capable drivers out the door.
WRONG! Microsoft only inspects drivers submitted to WHQL. Even then they only inspect the driver for how it adheres to the WDM, they don't debug the driver. Anyone can write a driver for windows and 32-bit drivers don't have to be digitally signed. Digital signatures are simply issued once a driver has passed WHQL. They do nothing towards the "quality" of the driver.
If device manufacturers would have always written good quality drivers from the get go, there wouldn't even be a need for WHQL.
My god do some basic research next time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHQL
That was my point.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
Dell's online store for small business (//%22http://www.dell.com/content/default.aspx?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd%22) offers new laptops with XP Home or XP Pro standard, and they'll throw in the media for Vista.
I don't see a compelling reason to switch, and having seen a brand new laptop with Vista take 10 minutes to boot, I'm happy to stay with XP.
Brand new to when? 1998? I have seen MANY laptops that are brand new take about 45 seconds from powerup to boot on Vista.
My desktop which is an x64 with the 64 bit version of Vista Ultimate takes about that long, sometimes shorter to boot.
FUD does abound on this topic, it would seem.
Did you just reply to the same thing twice?
Inteller, I'm guessing you're running a self-installed version of Vista. I can see it taking significantly longer on a store-bought machine because:
1. Places like bestbuy were selling woefully underpowered machines with Vista
2. OEM's load up their machines with every toolbar, system assistant, and media player manufactured. These can add minutes to boot time.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Did you just reply to the same thing twice?
Inteller, I'm guessing you're running a self-installed version of Vista. I can see it taking significantly longer on a store-bought machine because:
1. Places like bestbuy were selling woefully underpowered machines with Vista
2. OEM's load up their machines with every toolbar, system assistant, and media player manufactured. These can add minutes to boot time.
Hence the reason that if I was to ever buy a store branded machine (in other words if I ever get the money for a new laptop) I'll wipe the drive and start from scratch. But, even without doing this, you can take 10 or 15 minutes out to go in and remove all of this from the boot up. Not to mention the fact that this happens with XP too. I like my machine, I hit the power, go take a wizz, come back, log on to my account, find something on the DVR to play, and It's ready to go. Only time it seems to take a long time to boot is if I'm just sitting there staring at the screen. Gotta love those watched tea kettles.
To cut through all the crap...Vista is fine, it has it's hang ups just like XP did when it came out. It is a resource hog so if you want a pleasant experience, plan on 4GB RAM and at least a dual core processor. I myself am running Ultimate 64bit with a dual core AMD and I couldn't be happier.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Did you just reply to the same thing twice?
Inteller, I'm guessing you're running a self-installed version of Vista. I can see it taking significantly longer on a store-bought machine because:
1. Places like bestbuy were selling woefully underpowered machines with Vista
2. OEM's load up their machines with every toolbar, system assistant, and media player manufactured. These can add minutes to boot time.
no, i'm running all brand name machines, although not purchased at Worst Buy. Vista was pre-installed on all the boxes.
Based on your comment about toolbars you are calling login time boot time. Those are NOT the same. Boot time is from the point beyond the bios screen to a user login prompt. Toolbars and other garbage that run in the user space can be turned off and/or uninstalled.
Bottom line, those things have NOTHING to do with Vista itself. If you are too stupid to turn those things off, you deserve the performance you get.
The only things that could add to the bootup time would be anti-virus and unneeded system services. Windows (any version) starts a lot of services automatically because you -might- use them. Internet research will show you which ones you can safely turn off.
The #1 killer of boot time performance is Norton Anti-Virus and its ilk, found on MANY store bought computers. The first thing to do to get about a 5-10% performance increase across the board is to uninstall anything related to Symantec. I've seen their crapware take up hundreds of megs of RAM just sitting there.
quote:
Originally posted by izmophonik
To cut through all the crap...Vista is fine, it has it's hang ups just like XP did when it came out. It is a resource hog so if you want a pleasant experience, plan on 4GB RAM and at least a dual core processor. I myself am running Ultimate 64bit with a dual core AMD and I couldn't be happier.
That sounds like my box. I think the RAM speed is more helpful than anything. I went to 4Gb for Virtual PC reasons, but I noticed a little more snap just going to PC-5300 DIMMs. My RAM utilization was the same though.
funny thing though, I put Vista x64 on a P4HT with 4Gb and a FireGL 3350 at work and it only got a 3.9 WEI...all because of the FireGL. But the machine itself seems to run ok.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Good topic. I have an old Dell computer thats about 5 years or so old now, perhaps 6. It seems to really slow down when I do major image stuff with photoshop. Plus I am tired of sitting in one spot with this desktop. Just yesterday at the TN meeting I asked the geek squad there what I should get. They said the Mac Book Pro. Just looked up the pice... geez thats a fancy price, about 2,800. May have to wait till I finish my casino mural project late summer. But I do hear that for people that do lots of visual arts stuff that Mac is a good system, and I need a lot of speed. But gosh thats a pretty penny for a laptop. Plus I want to upgrade from my little 26" flat screen to a 42" over the fireplace lol. And if I got that then I would of course want a Blue Ray player and a decent sound system... All together your starting to get around the 6,000$ plus mark. Descisions, descisions. Danged consumer society always coming up with new toys, I mean, necessities.
I am a reformed PC user/builder/destroyer. I do graphic design, art, and 3D rendering on a Mac, and will never own another PC.
Some things that Mac simply does better is:
Handle large graphic images (many times faster than a PC without crashes).
Multi-tasking programs with no noticeable slow down (I currently have 12 applications open on my screen now)
The Microsoft Office Suite, Word, Excell, PowerPoint actually has more options graphically and runs better on the Mac (go figure? Thanks Bill).
Work with PDFs, RAW camera images, PhotoShop images in their native format even if you don't own the software (this is a huge advantage if you are a photographer or hobbyist!)
Store HUGE amounts of high-rez imagery in a single indexed iPhoto or Aperture library.(http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/product-details/aperture_learnmore_screens_small.jpg)
Boots in about 10 to 20 seconds even when loaded with apps.
No virus software to deal with. (I know there are viruses for Mac, it's just that neither I nor anyone I have known has ever encountered any of them, kinda like an urban myth I guess. Apple has immediately patched all new virus threats within the operating system rather than relying on yearly security patches and 3rd party vendors.)
More elegant, easier to use operating system.
Completely integrate your computer system with you home entertainment system, music, video, photos, everything! (I have these little $99 apple Airport Express boxes all over my house that I can plug in and instantly use to hook to anything to hear digital music, attach peripherals, or extend my network.
(http://images.apple.com/airportexpress/images/overview_express_20080115.png)
I've even used them to take over to neighbor's houses to use my iTunes library for parties.
Then you have the whole AppleTV thing that eliminates your need for Blockbuster, just click click, movie rented $2.99! or put your friends to sleep with your vacation photos. Or watch YouTube until you are brain dead!
(http://a248.e.akamai.net/7/248/2041/1412/store.apple.com/Catalog/regional/amr/itv/img/product-product.jpg)
I know I sound like a commercial, but ask yourself this, have you ever met a Mac user that didn't sound like a commercial?
Hmmm. I wonder why?
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
I know I sound like a commercial, but ask yourself this, have you ever met a Mac user that didn't sound like a commercial?
Hmmm. I wonder why?
maybe because the Cult of Apple programs them that way?[}:)]
nothing you mentioned is beyond a properly configured Vista box.
OS X is nice, but the retarded premium Apple puts on their hardware is a deal breaker. For instance, your little airport express ripoffs are simply wifi bridges in a pretty white box and marked up something ridiculous. Linksys and netgear sell devices that will do the same thing for much less.
This is why they will never sell the OS separately and take draconian steps of keeping it on their hardware....they make Microsoft look like an angel.
Can you imagine if you could only get Windows on a Dell? I think I'd puke.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
I know I sound like a commercial, but ask yourself this, have you ever met a Mac user that didn't sound like a commercial?
Hmmm. I wonder why?
maybe because the Cult of Apple programs them that way?[}:)]
nothing you mentioned is beyond a properly configured Vista box.
OS X is nice, but the retarded premium Apple puts on their hardware is a deal breaker. For instance, your little airport express ripoffs are simply wifi bridges in a pretty white box and marked up something ridiculous. Linksys and netgear sell devices that will do the same thing for much less.
This is why they will never sell the OS separately and take draconian steps of keeping it on their hardware....they make Microsoft look like an angel.
Can you imagine if you could only get Windows on a Dell? I think I'd puke.
Really I didn't realize Linksys or netgear had such a device with USB ports, an optical port, and stereo plugs that you can plug in with zero config for less than $99. They should really advertise!
I am glad you are here to inform us of such.
Now I have to get back to my ritual daily sacrifice to Steve Jobs.
Thanks for the helpful post.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Now I have to get back to my ritual daily sacrifice to Steve Jobs.
i figured as much.
Inteller, I think us PC users should start spouting off long lists of basic functionality as a fantastic selling point for why PC's are better than Macs. It'd be like QVC!
"THIS COMPUTER CAN HAVE TWEEEEEEEELVE PROGRAMS OPEN AT ONCE WITHOUT CATCHING FIRE!!!"
quote:
Originally posted by EricP
Inteller, I think us PC users should start spouting off long lists of basic functionality as a fantastic selling point for why PC's are better than Macs. It'd be like QVC!
"THIS COMPUTER CAN HAVE TWEEEEEEEELVE PROGRAMS OPEN AT ONCE WITHOUT CATCHING FIRE!!!"
depending on what your definition of "programs" is my Vista box has that many open just sitting idle.
but really, this thread isn't about Apple, it is about Vista.
quote:
Originally posted by EricP
Inteller, I think us PC users should start spouting off long lists of basic functionality as a fantastic selling point for why PC's are better than Macs. It'd be like QVC!
"THIS COMPUTER CAN HAVE TWEEEEEEEELVE PROGRAMS OPEN AT ONCE WITHOUT CATCHING FIRE!!!"
Don't get mad! (http://zenblue.net/alfred_sm.gif)
I mean if it catches on fire.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
OEM's load up their machines with every toolbar, system assistant, and media player manufactured. These can add minutes to boot time.
Ill second that. Almost any new machine you buy today must undergo a process to "decrapify" the hard drive (I didnt make up the word - google it yourself).
Sometimes you can actually find 3rd party instructions for your particular machine online, that describe how to safely remove all the pre-installed garbage (like demos and games you will never buy) that want to take possession of all your system resources from the moment you boot.
Ever since computer makers stopped giving you your own legitimate copy of your operating system (opting instead to pre-install it for you) that's the way it's been.
Just be sure to decrapify
before you connect to the internet.
I don't see what's so great about Vista to warrant upgrading your computer. I'm using Vista right now, and I hate it. It's frustrating, and every time IE freezes, instead of recovering, it restarts, going to the home page instead of the site you were on. Vista sucks, long live XP!
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
Vista sucks, long live XP!
Keep dreaming about the past while the world passes you by.
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
I don't see what's so great about Vista to warrant upgrading your computer. I'm using Vista right now, and I hate it. It's frustrating, and every time IE freezes, instead of recovering, it restarts, going to the home page instead of the site you were on. Vista sucks, long live XP!
We'll see how I manage in a month or so. My XP box has a 17 week uptime right now... since the ice storm. I've researched all the drivers for my components and made sure a Vista64 version is available. If you are having crashes, you should probably try and do something about it :)
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
I don't see what's so great about Vista to warrant upgrading your computer. I'm using Vista right now, and I hate it. It's frustrating, and every time IE freezes, instead of recovering, it restarts, going to the home page instead of the site you were on. Vista sucks, long live XP!
let me guess, you installed Vista on a non vista ready PC.....or you have slapped together some homebrew PC without checking for drivers first.
IE7 does not exhibit the problem you say...but then I don't go to pr0n sites with viruses and phishing popups so maybe that is your problem.[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
I don't see what's so great about Vista to warrant upgrading your computer. I'm using Vista right now, and I hate it. It's frustrating, and every time IE freezes, instead of recovering, it restarts, going to the home page instead of the site you were on. Vista sucks, long live XP!
let me guess, you installed Vista on a non vista ready PC.....or you have slapped together some homebrew PC without checking for drivers first.
IE7 does not exhibit the problem you say...but then I don't go to pr0n sites with viruses and phishing popups so maybe that is your problem.[}:)]
Nah, the p0rn sites don't crash IE7 either. I spend plenty of time there (gotta love insomnia coupled with internet).
Ya gota love how every Microsoft related thread becomes a Technical Support Forum! [}:)]
Vista works fine. I've been running it for years, since Alpha stages actually but not on my primary system. It will take a bit to get used to at first but not even CLOSE to the time it would take you to get used to OSX, if you've never used it. And yes, I run both.
For hardware, plan on a minimum of 2Gigs (4 would be better) of RAM and at least Dual Core proc for starters. That's pretty much the lower end of what's selling these days anyway.
Any big box PC will have to be "decrapified" to help with resources. Heh, gotta love that term.
I would also kill Aero, unless you like the transparent BS. Kill UAC, one of the most annoying things MS has done in a long while. Kill the side bar. It looks cool at first but I found a just prefer my homepage for RSS feeds and such. I 100% agree with making sure you have a Norton/Symantec free PC. That stuff is garbage and they should be ashamed. Mcafee isn't much better.
Bottom line is that it's just a change. With a few tweaks here and there and a good start with the hardware, you'll be fine. Vista is not the demon people have made it out to be.
Best of luck.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Ya gota love how every Microsoft related thread becomes a Technical Support Forum! [}:)]
i'd rather have that than a religious crusade on an Apple thread.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Ya gota love how every Microsoft related thread becomes a Technical Support Forum! [}:)]
i'd rather have that than a religious crusade on an Apple thread.
Blasphemy! [:O]
quote:
Originally posted by lsimmons
Vista works fine. I've been running it for years, since Alpha stages actually but not on my primary system. It will take a bit to get used to at first but not even CLOSE to the time it would take you to get used to OSX, if you've never used it. And yes, I run both.
For hardware, plan on a minimum of 2Gigs (4 would be better) of RAM and at least Dual Core proc for starters. That's pretty much the lower end of what's selling these days anyway.
Any big box PC will have to be "decrapified" to help with resources. Heh, gotta love that term.
I would also kill Aero, unless you like the transparent BS. Kill UAC, one of the most annoying things MS has done in a long while. Kill the side bar. It looks cool at first but I found a just prefer my homepage for RSS feeds and such. I 100% agree with making sure you have a Norton/Symantec free PC. That stuff is garbage and they should be ashamed. Mcafee isn't much better.
Bottom line is that it's just a change. With a few tweaks here and there and a good start with the hardware, you'll be fine. Vista is not the demon people have made it out to be.
Best of luck.
Advice taken- got dual core processer and two gigs of RAM. Now I just need to get used to the interface and sift back through the different thoughts and ideas here on how to tune it for best performance.
One thing I'm not doing right away is taking all the default MS updates, I've found that my old box seemed to get slower and slower as I would allow more MS updates.
Thanks for everyone's help.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by lsimmons
Vista works fine. I've been running it for years, since Alpha stages actually but not on my primary system. It will take a bit to get used to at first but not even CLOSE to the time it would take you to get used to OSX, if you've never used it. And yes, I run both.
For hardware, plan on a minimum of 2Gigs (4 would be better) of RAM and at least Dual Core proc for starters. That's pretty much the lower end of what's selling these days anyway.
Any big box PC will have to be "decrapified" to help with resources. Heh, gotta love that term.
I would also kill Aero, unless you like the transparent BS. Kill UAC, one of the most annoying things MS has done in a long while. Kill the side bar. It looks cool at first but I found a just prefer my homepage for RSS feeds and such. I 100% agree with making sure you have a Norton/Symantec free PC. That stuff is garbage and they should be ashamed. Mcafee isn't much better.
Bottom line is that it's just a change. With a few tweaks here and there and a good start with the hardware, you'll be fine. Vista is not the demon people have made it out to be.
Best of luck.
Advice taken- got dual core processer and two gigs of RAM. Now I just need to get used to the interface and sift back through the different thoughts and ideas here on how to tune it for best performance.
One thing I'm not doing right away is taking all the default MS updates, I've found that my old box seemed to get slower and slower as I would allow more MS updates.
Thanks for everyone's help.
get SP1, it is a good rollup of all the updates.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by lsimmons
Vista works fine. I've been running it for years, since Alpha stages actually but not on my primary system. It will take a bit to get used to at first but not even CLOSE to the time it would take you to get used to OSX, if you've never used it. And yes, I run both.
For hardware, plan on a minimum of 2Gigs (4 would be better) of RAM and at least Dual Core proc for starters. That's pretty much the lower end of what's selling these days anyway.
Any big box PC will have to be "decrapified" to help with resources. Heh, gotta love that term.
I would also kill Aero, unless you like the transparent BS. Kill UAC, one of the most annoying things MS has done in a long while. Kill the side bar. It looks cool at first but I found a just prefer my homepage for RSS feeds and such. I 100% agree with making sure you have a Norton/Symantec free PC. That stuff is garbage and they should be ashamed. Mcafee isn't much better.
Bottom line is that it's just a change. With a few tweaks here and there and a good start with the hardware, you'll be fine. Vista is not the demon people have made it out to be.
Best of luck.
Advice taken- got dual core processer and two gigs of RAM. Now I just need to get used to the interface and sift back through the different thoughts and ideas here on how to tune it for best performance.
One thing I'm not doing right away is taking all the default MS updates, I've found that my old box seemed to get slower and slower as I would allow more MS updates.
Thanks for everyone's help.
http://vistaonwindows.com/tips-and-tweaks.html
There is a better list out there, I just can't remember where I found it at
quote:
Originally posted by custosnox
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by lsimmons
Vista works fine. I've been running it for years, since Alpha stages actually but not on my primary system. It will take a bit to get used to at first but not even CLOSE to the time it would take you to get used to OSX, if you've never used it. And yes, I run both.
For hardware, plan on a minimum of 2Gigs (4 would be better) of RAM and at least Dual Core proc for starters. That's pretty much the lower end of what's selling these days anyway.
Any big box PC will have to be "decrapified" to help with resources. Heh, gotta love that term.
I would also kill Aero, unless you like the transparent BS. Kill UAC, one of the most annoying things MS has done in a long while. Kill the side bar. It looks cool at first but I found a just prefer my homepage for RSS feeds and such. I 100% agree with making sure you have a Norton/Symantec free PC. That stuff is garbage and they should be ashamed. Mcafee isn't much better.
Bottom line is that it's just a change. With a few tweaks here and there and a good start with the hardware, you'll be fine. Vista is not the demon people have made it out to be.
Best of luck.
Advice taken- got dual core processer and two gigs of RAM. Now I just need to get used to the interface and sift back through the different thoughts and ideas here on how to tune it for best performance.
One thing I'm not doing right away is taking all the default MS updates, I've found that my old box seemed to get slower and slower as I would allow more MS updates.
Thanks for everyone's help.
http://vistaonwindows.com/tips-and-tweaks.html
There is a better list out there, I just can't remember where I found it at
not a page website, but just one comment about Readyboost...it should be used to provide a consistent cache hit. See, with Vista it looks at your apps usage and caches those apps because it thinks you will use them the next time you are on the computer. However, if your evil twin gets on the computer and starts using the PC completely differently you will see a performance hit because Vista will not have those other items cached. Readyboost gets around that by simply caching the hell out of everything and putting it on a memory stick or whatever. Vista will look at a Readyboost cache before anything else.
I confirmed this when I only had 2Gb, but I haven't tried it since I went to 4. Vista may be able to cache the hell out of everything now with 4 and not need Readyboost.
from everything I've read on ready boost, once you pass the 2gig mark on your RAM, it's redundant.
that's probably the case, but I think I'm still getting cache misses when I launch apps that I very rarely use.
My main beef with Vista is all the extra hardware requirements.I will probably wait until the last minute before I upgrade to Vista.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP#System_requirements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Hardware_requirements
Just use Linux. It's a much better OS than Windows.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Okay, I've finally got to replace my laptop, it's worn out. I think I might have waited a bit long as just about everything I've seen on line is loaded with Vista and I've been told it's a total sh!t-hook for an operating system.
How bad is it?
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFan-inTexas
Just use Linux. It's a much better OS than Windows.
If that was really true then I would think the vast majority of OSs out there would be linux.The only emulators I need are console video game systems and when I install a piece of software I do not need to look to see if it compatible with my operating system.When I run to the store to buy a piece of software the only thing I need to look on the side of the box for is to see if it compatible with my hardware.
Linux geeks love to claim linux is safer because it has less viruses,spyware and adaware.Mac geeks claim the same thing too.I am sure windows would have fewer of those things too if only 50 + people used that operating system.Why would it make sense to make viruses,spyware and adaware and other similar programs for operating systems that most people never heard of when you know that most people use windows?