• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Finally had my first "I HATE VISTA!!1" moment....

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

=ACID RAIN=

Member
Joined
May 19, 2003
Location
Kingwood, TX
I run vista business 32 bit on my quad. It bugged out on me with some stupid "Login process has failed to create the security options dialog" crap. Seems to be a common occurrence. Had to force a reboot. WHAT BULL****! Lost a day's worth of work on my SMP clients.

Thus is life, but it doesn't mean I have to take it with a smile.

M$ got smart and dropped in symlinks for vista (a *nix feature), now if they'd just go one further and give it RUNLEVELS. I might could start folding @ runlevel 2, so I could bring the machine down to that runlevel when it's being stupid, and then bring it back up again.

Erg.
 
Is your Quad a dedicated folder? I am guessing its not because you are running VISTA, however if it is you really should be running 64-bit Linux.
 
No, I have to use this rig for about 50 different things, while I fold :)

I want to build a couple of dedicated quad rigs, but it's going to have to wait a little bit longer...
 
Really!?!??? :confused: Just now!!?!???!? :confused:

I had my first "I Hate Vista" moment the minute I hit the Desktop. :D
 
LOL.

Vista has worked great for me. I mean, I see no more annoyance in vista than I did in XP, just in different areas. For that matter, I see as many annoyances in linux as a desktop OS as I do in vista. Of course linux is more stable usually, but the annoyances are there nonetheless.

Of course, this is after I killed the UAC popups. God that nearly drove me to drinking.
 
Really!?!??? :confused: Just now!!?!???!? :confused:

I had my first "I Hate Vista" moment the minute I hit the Desktop. :D

Lol. I was surprised. My first I HATE VISTA was when I installed new drivers with the auto updater thing and it completely ate my registry. I was being very tolerant of vista back then though. Now even if a game wont load fast I will go ballistix lol.
 
Sorry to hear of your Vista pain. I was headed in a different direction in my o/s preferences anyway, but after beta testing Vista I realized that it offered nothing that was important to me.
 
@ pimp: Oh yeah, never use MS drivers. I don't install any MS drivers, ever. Either they come from the mobo CD or from the manuf. website. The ones from MS update will screw you over almost every time.
 
been a vista beta tester for 2 1/2 years now thay have sent every type of copy thay have made including the ultimate 64 bit (last one thay sent)

so been hateing vista a long time hahahahaahahaahahaa
 
LOL.

Hey, I only have vista 1) because it was free through the school and 2) I need to stay on top of the OS scene because I'll probably have to support vista at my next job.
 
Hey, I only have vista 1) because it was free through the school and 2) I need to stay on top of the OS scene because I'll probably have to support vista at my next job.

That's the only reason I'm going to put it on a rig... probably one of my AMD DCs... so I don't waste that nice Folding power from my Intels. :D Man, did I just say that? :rolleyes:

I've touch a few Vista boxes sparingly, they weren't mine to do with as I please, so I didn't get too deep into anything... but I just put my second quad in a case last week and decided to switch to 2x2GB of RAM, so I needed 64bit... and since XP 64-bit isn't having as much attention paid to it anymore, I decided to try Vista 64bit. That lasted for ~2-3 hours. Came home the next day and fired off XP 64bit... I'm very happy with it. :)

I mean, come on... Vista was sitting at the Desktop eating ~600-700MB of RAM... what the hey!? :confused: That's serious bloatware if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
I mean, come on... Vista was sitting at the Desktop eating ~600-700MB of RAM... what the hey!? :confused: That's serious bloatware if you ask me.
It is supposed to. It is caching programs/other stuffs in RAM so that it can be accessed immediately. It isn't "wasted", if the space is needed, it just drops it in about a clock cycle.

Same thing with linux, after about 2-3 hours at the desktop, ALL of my 8gb of RAM would be taken...and the system is VERY snappy.
 
It is supposed to. It is caching programs/other stuffs in RAM so that it can be accessed immediately. It isn't "wasted", if the space is needed, it just drops it in about a clock cycle.

Same thing with linux, after about 2-3 hours at the desktop, ALL of my 8gb of RAM would be taken...and the system is VERY snappy.

So if these things are cached and available... why is it soooooooo much slower than the XP 64-bit I have installed now?

Really, I didn't feel that Vista was "snappy" at all. :shrug:
 
Really? Well I guess since I have a 3.6 quad I can't complain, but for me it's always nice and fast and pretty damn stable. And this is on 2GB of ram, with firefox, cisco's packet tracer, folding, itunes, trillian and whatever else may be open at a given moment.
 
Yep.. XP 64-bit feels much more "snappy" to me... and this is a quad OC'd to 3.4GHz and RAM @ 1020. So it's not like it's slow. :D

I have to admit... I just don't like "the way it works" and am not ready to change. Heck, I didn't move to XP almost until SP2 came out, granted XP is just a polished Win2k. I image it'll be a similar story for me and Vista. ;)
 
Back