Vista - Time to sort it out... [Rant]

[DanFraser]

I am getting sick of people assuming that Vista is slow, rubbish, unstable, limited and stops you doing anything other than browse.

Where people are reading this stuff I have no idea, but please, stop reading it.

Vista does not stop you copying your MP3's to CD, or vice-versa. It doesn't stop you running certain programs. It's actually difficult to find programs it does actually stop, rather than those program creators not updating a woefully outdated program to actually work on an up to date operating system. And I haven't see any evidence that DRM is there! And yes, someone actually tried telling me personally, that Vista doesn't allow you to copy music files in any form at all. They have never used Vista.

Vista uses 750MB ram? Since when? Alpha maybe... Try closing all your fluff programs that you probably never use. Oh look! You might be using the same amount of RAM I am! 320MB. In these days of people buying computers with 1GB RAM or more in cheap computers, RAM usage is not an issue.

Now someone is bound to mention driver problems. This isn't Microsofts fault, it's the hardware manufacturer's responsibility. So much so, that someone is taking a class action against nVidia for falsely advertising their products work with Vista. And didn't this happen with XP as well?

You may also be surprised to learn that Vista is the most stable OS from Microsoft I have ever seen. The best example is the awful drivers from nVidia that keep crashing out whenever they want to. With XP and the OSes before it, this meant a Blue Screen Of Death, no way around it. Now, your screen just goes black for a few seconds, and Vista almost merrily reports (it's probably being smug about it) that the display driver stopped responding and Vista has recovered.

Vista is also quite smooth in it's operation. Personally, with the amount of hard drive space being used that I have, opening My Computer in XP and browsing the files was a particular chore that got annoying at times, being very clunky and sometimes bought up that great explorer memory leak crash. Vista does not bat an eyelid. Sure, if you don't have a graphics card or processor you bought in the last 2 years, you may want to think about turning off the AeroGlass effects, but hey, this is modern stuff!

You should also realise that XP is 6 years old now. Microsoft have already stated that really they should have had Vista out long ago so they could drop support for a very old OS. XP in computing years is ancient. Really ancient. The equivalent of you using a K6-2 with 64MB ram.

Vista is merely taking advantage of the huge difference in computing power that has developed since the last major OS release (XP, only geeks and admins really use 2k3, heck, most people don't even know about 2k3). Xp used about 1GB when installed, Vista uses 7-10GB (depending on version). Not really a big deal to fuss about is it? PC World sells computers with 200GB of drive space in their budget lines. Whereas when I first got XP, I had a whopping 20GB hard drive. Yes, I overcompensated...

I am actually going to say, Yes, wait for SP1, but don't scream to everyone else that they should wait for SP1. Vista works now. It works, without fuss, without major incidents. Yes, there'll still be security issues, but as Microsoft owns 90% or whatever of the market, of course people will target their OSes security flaws!

This post has been made because I am sick and tired of seeing scaremongering, witch-hunts, end of the world prophecies about Vista. Don't like it? Fine, use XP, I ain't gonna stop you. However, I do want to stop you from bashing something you've only seen screenshots of and only read about at theinquirer.

 

[shadin]

I agree that the DRM rumors are way overblown. However, I disagree on the RAM and HD usage. The fact that the OS uses 300-400MB RAM idle and 7-10GB of HD space is retarded. They're really trying to push gaming, yet they make the OS bloated as all hell in memory and space consumption.

I'd give anything for a version of Windows from Microsoft that was the kernel, GUI, and DirectX. No fluff features, no extra applications, nothing. Hell, I'd pay the same price as the normal version, just because it would finally be geared towards gaming.

 

[Oroka Sempai]

Well said. I have been getting really sick of misinformed people crapping about Vista. M$ is evil and out to kill your PC with thier evil Vista. Grow up.

I could see people getting a little cranky if they only had a 80gb HDD and Vista took up 10gb of that, but heck, 80gb is pretty much the smallest HDD they really sell now. Heck, my Dad's PC has 450GB of HDD space, and he calls adding a webpage to his favourites 'downloading'. As for RAM, yeah, it uses more, but it uses it alot more efficently. When XP came out, I got a 512mb stick to go with my 256mb, cost me nearly $200, now, 2GB of DDR2 will put you back about $200. 2GB is great for Vista, just as 512MB was great for XP.

 

[Rattle]

I agree that the DRM rumors are way overblown. However, I disagree on the RAM and HD usage. The fact that the OS uses 300-400MB RAM idle and 7-10GB of HD space is retarded. They're really trying to push gaming, yet they make the OS bloated as all hell in memory and space consumption.

I'd give anything for a version of Windows from Microsoft that was the kernel, GUI, and DirectX. No fluff features, no extra applications, nothing. Hell, I'd pay the same price as the normal version, just because it would finally be geared towards gaming.

you dont understand the way vista works my friend, the ram used at idle is to precache or preload things, vista learns your behavior and preloads many things the user has used in advance, almost programs itself like cpu cache, upon entering a game or 3d app all that is RELEASED, vista doesnt use any more memory gaming than xp does.

 

[ps2cho]

I would wait until some people crack into this and streamlining will be the next best thing to do

 

[shadin]

you dont understand the way vista works my friend, the ram used at idle is to precache or preload things, vista learns your behavior and preloads many things the user has used in advance, almost programs itself like cpu cache, upon entering a game or 3d app all that is RELEASED, vista doesnt use any more memory gaming than xp does.

Then why do some of the benchmarks indicate a drop in performance compared to XP? With all the "features" that are crammed in, there's absolutely no possible way that Vista doesn't consume more memory than XP. And honestly, XP was fairly bloated too, had to use XPLite and nLite to clean that crap out.

 

[eaglescouter]

Vista is more stable? It is really too early in vista's short life to declare that it earns this title.

I have XP boxes that have been running without a reboot longer than Vista RTM has existed.

 

[Rattle]

Then why do some of the benchmarks indicate a drop in performance compared to XP? With all the "features" that are crammed in, there's absolutely no possible way that Vista doesn't consume more memory than XP. And honestly, XP was fairly bloated too, had to use XPLite and nLite to clean that crap out.

I dont have any difference in 3dmark05 or fear, they perform the same, many people are reporting increased 03 scores and some are reporting less 06 scores, pre 8800 graphics cards seem to take a hit where as 8800's dont seem to as much, I understand your argument, but most of it is 3rd party software and driver issues, the OS is ahead of everything else.

 

[shadin]

You don't show any drops because your current hardware is overkill for any game available on the market, and will be for some time (minus games that are purposely tech-demos, like Crysis). My point of contention is that there's no reason for an OS to be so resource hungry. The OS should be a thin layer used to run what I want to run, not the end-all of computing.

The OS shouldn't add a bunch of bloatware just because high-end tech has the resources. There's plenty of games and programs to fill that role.

 

[Rattle]

haha its no the end of all computing and its really not all that resource hungry. Really at this point there's no reason to go to it anyway, unless you wanna play crysis, if you dont have the hardware to play crysis then you dont need vista anyway and it wont run that great, problem solved. For me I was happy on xp and for me vista runs like xp. I have no problems with it.

 

[Oroka Sempai]

For me I was happy on xp and for me vista runs like xp. I have no problems with it.

Same here, with some nice refinements and options thown in to boot.


In Soviet America, Vista is installed in YOU!

 

[greyharte]

my biggest issues w/ vista at this point is the cost of admission. while hardware prices are going down ms os' are going up expotentially. at thier current rate they are going to have to give me a computer w/ their next os ...

as for install my friend just loaded it on his system it took up 15gb, yes he loaded vista ultimate, furthermore, i have no use for all the eye candy or even see the purpose of it, even if it is more efficient at managing resources, it's still bloated as all hell and unnescessarily so.

i also take issue with the system requirements, vista and ms are forcing one to comply w/ their ideal configuration out the gate rather than giving people the chance to build up for it ... more legacy hardware out the window ... more money down the drain. also, the way that ms is trying to manage it w/ activation, certification, driver signing, dx10 upgrading from older os's (especially since ms's os upgrades have been notoriously poor in implementation)

will i get it eventually probably, wont have a choice ... but am i thrilled about the prospect ... no ... 300.00 plus all the hardware upgrades ill need to do to meet my needs and the os's is pretty prohibitive for me .. i am almost better off just buying a new computer that has it already installed, it would be cheaper than buying the os alone

 

[Rattle]

my biggest issues w/ vista at this point is the cost of admission. while hardware prices are going down ms os' are going up expotentially. at thier current rate they are going to have to give me a computer w/ their next os ...

as for install my friend just loaded it on his system it took up 15gb, yes he loaded vista ultimate, furthermore, i have no use for all the eye candy or even see the purpose of it, even if it is more efficient at managing resources, it's still bloated as all hell and unnescessarily so.

i also take issue with the system requirements, vista and ms are forcing one to comply w/ their ideal configuration out the gate rather than giving people the chance to build up for it ... more legacy hardware out the window ... more money down the drain. also, the way that ms is trying to manage it w/ activation, certification, driver signing, dx10 upgrading from older os's (especially since ms's os upgrades have been notoriously poor in implementation)

will i get it eventually probably, wont have a choice ... but am i thrilled about the prospect ... no ... 300.00 plus all the hardware upgrades ill need to do to meet my needs and the os's is pretty prohibitive for me .. i am almost better off just buying a new computer that has it already installed, it would be cheaper than buying the os alone

set the system to performance and delete the hibernation thru disk cleanup that will buy you 4gb back lol, also system restore, delete all but most recent will gove you back some space too.

 

[Oroka Sempai]

I agree on the price point... but it isnt rediculous considering the current price for XP Pro Retail. If it was going to be another 5-6 years till a new Windows release, then I would go retail, but they are expecting Fiji in 2-3 years... I should be ready for a mobo replacement in that time frame, so OEM I will go (when I get the $).

 

[shadin]

haha its no the end of all computing and its really not all that resource hungry. Really at this point there's no reason to go to it anyway, unless you wanna play crysis, if you dont have the hardware to play crysis then you dont need vista anyway and it wont run that great, problem solved. For me I was happy on xp and for me vista runs like xp. I have no problems with it.

Well, I didn't like FarCry, so Crysis is a no-go for me. Just seemed like a tech demo with little substance. Just my opinion.

I just think it's silly that they make an OS that only cutting-edge hardware can run on, when it's not necessary to do that. It certainly isn't a gaming/performance mindset. I like some of the things they've put together for it, I just wish it came in a more streamlined package. The actual improvements over XP don't justify any more hardware requirements.

 

[Oroka Sempai]

No matter what, everyone will not adopt Vista right away, so where will hardware be in a year or so from now? XP was out of pratical range of alot of old Win98 systems when it came out too... was it worth a upgrade, you make that decision.

 

[TranceBear]

I am getting sick of people assuming that Vista is slow, rubbish, unstable, limited and stops you doing anything other than browse.

Where people are reading this stuff I have no idea, but please, stop reading it.

Vista does not stop you copying your MP3's to CD, or vice-versa. It doesn't stop you running certain programs. It's actually difficult to find programs it does actually stop, rather than those program creators not updating a woefully outdated program to actually work on an up to date operating system. And I haven't see any evidence that DRM is there! And yes, someone actually tried telling me personally, that Vista doesn't allow you to copy music files in any form at all. They have never used Vista.

Vista uses 750MB ram? Since when? Alpha maybe... Try closing all your fluff programs that you probably never use. Oh look! You might be using the same amount of RAM I am! 320MB. In these days of people buying computers with 1GB RAM or more in cheap computers, RAM usage is not an issue.

Now someone is bound to mention driver problems. This isn't Microsofts fault, it's the hardware manufacturer's responsibility. So much so, that someone is taking a class action against nVidia for falsely advertising their products work with Vista. And didn't this happen with XP as well?

You may also be surprised to learn that Vista is the most stable OS from Microsoft I have ever seen. The best example is the awful drivers from nVidia that keep crashing out whenever they want to. With XP and the OSes before it, this meant a Blue Screen Of Death, no way around it. Now, your screen just goes black for a few seconds, and Vista almost merrily reports (it's probably being smug about it) that the display driver stopped responding and Vista has recovered.

Vista is also quite smooth in it's operation. Personally, with the amount of hard drive space being used that I have, opening My Computer in XP and browsing the files was a particular chore that got annoying at times, being very clunky and sometimes bought up that great explorer memory leak crash. Vista does not bat an eyelid. Sure, if you don't have a graphics card or processor you bought in the last 2 years, you may want to think about turning off the AeroGlass effects, but hey, this is modern stuff!

You should also realise that XP is 6 years old now. Microsoft have already stated that really they should have had Vista out long ago so they could drop support for a very old OS. XP in computing years is ancient. Really ancient. The equivalent of you using a K6-2 with 64MB ram.

Vista is merely taking advantage of the huge difference in computing power that has developed since the last major OS release (XP, only geeks and admins really use 2k3, heck, most people don't even know about 2k3). Xp used about 1GB when installed, Vista uses 7-10GB (depending on version). Not really a big deal to fuss about is it? PC World sells computers with 200GB of drive space in their budget lines. Whereas when I first got XP, I had a whopping 20GB hard drive. Yes, I overcompensated...

I am actually going to say, Yes, wait for SP1, but don't scream to everyone else that they should wait for SP1. Vista works now. It works, without fuss, without major incidents. Yes, there'll still be security issues, but as Microsoft owns 90% or whatever of the market, of course people will target their OSes security flaws!

This post has been made because I am sick and tired of seeing scaremongering, witch-hunts, end of the world prophecies about Vista. Don't like it? Fine, use XP, I ain't gonna stop you. However, I do want to stop you from bashing something you've only seen screenshots of and only read about at theinquirer.

Well put.

 

[Mr. Chambers]

I've been toying with Ultimate edition for a few hours, and so far haven't had any real complaints. The resource gadget does show my RAM usage out of the box with no programs running/installed @ 36% of 2GB - which in my opinion is a bit much - but as someone has mentioned, perhaps that is the prefetching at work?

 

[Goateh]

I will agree with the OP, nicely put and very concise

 

[deathman20]

Well put man.... Didn't think about writing something like this but I've been doing it on a pure thread basis when I see it.

Agreed, Vista takes more space up in ram, whoopie weather I had 2gig or my 4gig im using I could care less. It runs games the same as before if anything minor hits. Harddisk space eh it uses a little more but nothing that vLite might beable to clear out in time. Services that uses the ram, nothing like a little tweaking to kill alot of those apps.

Overall Vista IMO is defaintly alot more stable then XP when it first was released and even with SP1. I've yet to have it BSOD, thanks to its new video memory managment system among other things.

In rank of releases for MS's OS catagory Vista was the smoothest. Downside currently companies are still catching up on drivers for Vista, but other then that I'd say it was a fine release and defainly a nice OS. Oh ya 1 other downside its pricey, but in due time if anyone wants DX10 you'll most likely need to switch over so its a hit you'll have to take.