Do NOT buy/install Windows Vista!

I have given up trying to convince people that Vista isn't as bad as some would have you believe.

In a few years, everyone will have Windows Vista and we'll all be complaining about Vienna's outrageous system requirements and claim that it's just Vista with a fancy skin.
 
I wasn't going to get Vista anyway. I've seen it on TV, and it totally sucks. I mean, I saw the way you scroll through folders. What the heck was the matter with double-clicking the icons and opening a folder the traditional way? Plus the cherry on the cake has to be all those applications running in the background, which you CANNOT turn off. Not even a really really good version of EndItAll can fix that. I'm out. 👎:yuck:
 
EJRocky
I wasn't going to get Vista anyway. I've seen it on TV, and it totally sucks. I mean, I saw the way you scroll through folders. What the heck was the matter with double-clicking the icons and opening a folder the traditional way? Plus the cherry on the cake has to be all those applications running in the background, which you CANNOT turn off. Not even a really really good version of EndItAll can fix that. I'm out. 👎:yuck:
Click to expand...
I'm not even going to bother. If all you can see is 'pretty scrolling folders' then it's simply not worth it.
 
dougiemeats
In a few years, everyone will have Windows Vista and we'll all be complaining about Vienna's outrageous system requirements and claim that it's just Vista with a fancy skin.
Click to expand...

Some would argue that ALL versions of windows are just the previous version with a fancy skin.

Here's the question, and I've brought it up before. Why is it that companies that program for video game consoles can learn to get more from the machine over the course of it's life, but with PC's you constantly have new software that requires higher and higher standards?

I have a friend that brought in Vista on his very fast laptop and if it wasn't for his over clocked video card, he would have only scored about a 4.2 on their scale. That's insane considering how much he spent on the machine! Vista resting uses 50% of his 1GB of RAM. That's just stupid!

So again, why can't Microsoft learn to get more from less instead of always making the consumer upgrade the hardware?
 
Sloppy coding?

Seriously though, the more resources available, less corners you need to cut. We're beyond the days of 128mb computer systems. I think we're beyond the even the 512mb systems as 1gb seems to be the consumer standard for new systems. Keep in mind that 128mb of ram back in the day cost as much as a 1gb stick today..... Just to keep things in perspective.
 
Vista is the first MS OS I haven't been running on a day to day basis at least 6 months before official release - I do not like it..

I do not like it one bit.. Sure, it looks very purdy, but XP works, so why blow it off.. It's a perfectly stable 32 bit OS that does everything I need - Why should I blow it off..

And whoever said XP wasn't wasn't meant to handle DX10 - BS, DX10 is just another set of features - The underlying OS has nothing to do with it - It's just another MS way of forcing Vista down your throat.....
 
Pako
Sloppy coding?

Seriously though, the more resources available, less corners you need to cut. We're beyond the days of 128mb computer systems. I think we're beyond the even the 512mb systems as 1gb seems to be the consumer standard for new systems. Keep in mind that 128mb of ram back in the day cost as much as a 1gb stick today..... Just to keep things in perspective.
Click to expand...

I guess it was more of a rhetorical question. But basically I find it pitiful that you need almost a brand new machine to run Vista with any efficiency. However, if you install Windows 95/98 on today's machines it loads in less then 5 minutes and boots up about as fast as the average TV.

Why can't MS give us a version of windows devoid of all the garbage? I just want something to run my computer without sucking up all the processes and memory. Is that too much to ask? I guess I should go to Linux huh? :dopey:
 
Swift
I guess it was more of a rhetorical question. But basically I find it pitiful that you need almost a brand new machine to run Vista with any efficiency. However, if you install Windows 95/98 on today's machines it loads in less then 5 minutes and boots up about as fast as the average TV.
Click to expand...

I guess we have a winner in the "Slowest computer Evah" contest :-)

And I do agree with the part about removing the bloat - Has anyone tried TinyXP Beast Edition ?... 140Mb for the install image - takes up around 400 megs + swap and runs unbelievably fast on dated hardware...

I recommend XP Lite though, as it gives more options as to what to remove and what not to remove...
 
Flerbizky
I guess we have a winner in the "Slowest computer Evah" contest :-)
Click to expand...

Either I wrote that wrong or you read it wrong. I meant it installs in about 5 minutes or less. Then it boots up in about the same time as the average tube TV. :)
 
Swift
Either I wrote that wrong or you read it wrong. I meant it installs in about 5 minutes or less. Then it boots up in about the same time as the average tube TV. :)
Click to expand...

Probably a bummer on both parties - I read it as you meaning "Install 98 on modern hardware and it boots up in less than 5 seconds" :-)
 
Swift
Some would argue that ALL versions of windows are just the previous version with a fancy skin.
Click to expand...

I hear the same thing about new versions of OS X and various Linux distros. What people forget is how much work is done "under the hood." For example, Ubuntu Edgy Eft looks exactly like Dapper Drake, except for the rounded windows corners. However, if you asked a developer, he could go on and on about the changes made.

Here's the question, and I've brought it up before. Why is it that companies that program for video game consoles can learn to get more from the machine over the course of it's life, but with PC's you constantly have new software that requires higher and higher standards?
Click to expand...

Good question, and I can't answer this without doing research on the subject. I do think Pako has it pretty much answered.

I have a friend that brought in Vista on his very fast laptop and if it wasn't for his over clocked video card, he would have only scored about a 4.2 on their scale. That's insane considering how much he spent on the machine! Vista resting uses 50% of his 1GB of RAM. That's just stupid!
Click to expand...

:eek: Only a 4.2!? That's actually a very good score. For the record, my computer scored a whopping "1" :P

Flerbizky
I do not like it one bit.. Sure, it looks very purdy, but XP works, so why blow it off.. It's a perfectly stable 32 bit OS that does everything I need - Why should I blow it off..
Click to expand...

Some would argue that the horse-and-buggy would still get the job done. Technology moves forward. And it moves fast. The problem is that many people are afraid of change. That's why we're still using a keyboard layout designed to slow down typing.

Let's face it, XP wasn't going to be around forever. In fact, it should have been replaced a long time ago. Other operating systems are making great strides, and Microsoft needed an answer. Is Vista the best answer? Certainly not, but it's a start.

Swift
Is that too much to ask? I guess I should go to Linux huh? :dopey:
Click to expand...

Believe me, the open-source world isn't that much better at memory efficiency. ;)

Before anyone accuses me of being a Microsoft fanboy, I'd like to make it clear that I don't even have any Windows-run systems anymore. I have two full-fledged Linux boxes and an iMac G5. My main computer that I use every day is powered by Ubuntu 6.10. However, it does get to me when people complain about technology moving forward.
 
Swift
I guess it was more of a rhetorical question. But basically I find it pitiful that you need almost a brand new machine to run Vista with any efficiency. However, if you install Windows 95/98 on today's machines it loads in less then 5 minutes and boots up about as fast as the average TV.

Why can't MS give us a version of windows devoid of all the garbage? I just want something to run my computer without sucking up all the processes and memory. Is that too much to ask? I guess I should go to Linux huh? :dopey:
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying. Personally I'm excited about Vista as it will force high-end hardware technology to lower prices for the average consumer while making new hardware available on the market that would other wise be unnecessary. :)
 
dougiemeats
Some would argue that the horse-and-buggy would still get the job done. Technology moves forward. And it moves fast. The problem is that many people are afraid of change. That's why we're still using a keyboard layout designed to slow down typing.
Click to expand...
I deal with this c**p for a living - Tell me, please, what I can do with XP I can't do with Vista...

I'm the last one in the room to fear change, if it's for the better - I think Vista _may_ be, in security for Joe Average, but certainly not for much else...
 
Flerbizky
I deal with this c**p for a living - Tell me, please, what I can do with XP I can't do with Vista...

I'm the last one in the room to fear change, if it's for the better - I think Vista _may_ be, in security for Joe Average, but certainly not for much else...
Click to expand...

I think you meant it the other way, but regardless:

I'm not questioning XP's capabilities. But Vista does everything XP is capable of doing - only better. For example:

  • XP's search is pathetic. You can download a desktop search solution from Yahoo, Google, or even Microsoft. Vista, however, provides this out-of-the-box.
  • You can download the excellent Picasa photo organizing application from Google. But guess what? My grandma doesn't know how to do that. With Vista, she already has Photo Gallery. Again, out-of-the-box.
  • Accidentally delete a file? No worries. Need a quick boost in speed? Plug in your flash drive. The list goes on.
It's true, with the help of third-party software, XP is just as capable of Vista. However, not everyone wants to hunt down software to make their OS capable. Why do you think Internet Explorer is still the most-used browser?

I believe Burnout mentioned this a while back, but speaking of third-party software: Vista is new. Developers haven't had a chance to fully take advantage of its capabilities. Look how far XP has gotten with the help of third-party development. Just think what Vista will be capable of in a year or two.

I'm not urging everyone to upgrade right away. I am simply saying, if you do happen to upgrade from XP to Vista, it will not be a step-back.
 
Burnout
I'm not a hardcore gamer by anybody's standards, but I have a decent system with a decent video card.
Click to expand...

O RLY? ;)

Anyway, my opinion of Vista is this: it's a good upgrade to Windows. If I were still using my old Celeron D laptop, I'd keep on using XP. And to everyone who doesn't have an optimal system for Vista, wait a year or two before you upgrade. By then, those "necessary" top-of-the-line PCs will be more affordable.

And to the argument that "Vista is only XP with a new look", if that were true, most Macintards would still be using OS9 and Windows users would still be on Windows 95. Like dougiemeats said, there's many under-the-hood changes, and many minor features are added or enhanced. Example, there's a utility for easy screen captures and there's a Spotlight-like function. Granted, they're already in OSX, and so are many of the new features added, but I'd prefer to have those luxuries in Windows instead of them being left out.

And for the record, I'll be boot camping Vista Home Premium when Leopard comes out. :dopey:
 
Swift
I just want something to run my computer without sucking up all the processes and memory. Is that too much to ask? I guess I should go to Linux huh? :dopey:
Click to expand...

OK, I'm late coming to this one but anyway....

Better going to Linux? Very possibly, it depends what you want to do. I run Linux at home about 97% of the time - the other 3% is when I fancy a blast on LFS or rFactor. It does all the basic stuff - email, web browsing, IM and so on. If you must use Photoshop (instead of GIMP), Office (instead of OpenOffice) or Visual Studio (no real alternative, IMO) then Linux isn't for you - and there are people I know that use obscure features of the first two that aren't available in the open alternatives. Gaming as well, of course - running Windows games through Wine has not been a happy experience for me.

But if you don't need Windows gaming and/or odd stuff in programs like Office/Photoshop/Flash/Dreamweaver/whatever then Linux is a completely valid alternative - it does all the "usual stuff" very well indeed, has alternatives for most of the unusual stuff although not all, and of course is free.

Getting back to Vista, as I've already said on this forum I really see no need to buy Vista. If you have a computer running XP then the chances are you have it set up the way you like it, and in my experience of the Vista betas (yet to try the RTM version, but that will change soon as we have to start testing stuff on it at work) then getting it the way you want it will be hard work. I know there's a lot of exaggerations out there about the UAC prompts, but it did really annoy me. If you get it on new PC of course it's a different story, but personally I wouldn't upgrade an XP machine to Vista - just not worth the money.

A genuine example - I'm currently speccing a new laptop for work, it's not my money and I have a reasonably free rein on what I get. It will have plenty enough horsepower to do the Vista thing, but I'm currently erring towards getting XP because the prettying up, better search, and other benefits just aren't worth the extra hassle with UAC, and that's without the security problems I expect from any pre-SP1 OS from Microsoft.

Sorry for the long post, I had a lot to get through having just come to this thread. The summary, all my own opinion of course:

Vista is not worth the upgrade money from XP
If you're getting it with a new PC, it is indeed very shiny and probably worth it, but...
be wary of security problems
Linux is a genuine alternative. Try it - you might like it, you might not, but give it a go.

PS - dougiemeats - just a question about your comment on Linux & resources. You're on Edgy if memory serves, what's chewing resources? Just checked on my machine with Beryl, Kiba-Dock and Screenlets running as well as a couple of torrents and playing music, and it's on about 50% (no swap used) RAM and well under 50% CPU while typing this reply. Doesn't seem too excessive to me, so I'm a bit puzzled.
 
Something not mentioned yet, when introducing a new version of software, a company has to be some what careful not to make it too different or they will loose end users. It has to be familiar enough so that the transition is easy on both tech support and the end user alike, not to forget keeping it familiar for developers of third part software as well. Making it the coolest thing since sliced bread for the geek community is not smart business.
 
Pako
Something not mentioned yet, when introducing a new version of software, a company has to be some what careful not to make it too different or they will loose end users. It has to be familiar enough so that the transition is easy on both tech support and the end user alike, not to forget keeping it familiar for developers of third part software as well. Making it the coolest thing since sliced bread for the geek community is not smart business.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you're saying Pako. But look at ALL the different versions of Vista. Do you mean to tell me they couldn't get us a stripped down version that just did what we needed and not what they thought was cool?
 
gregc
PS - dougiemeats - just a question about your comment on Linux & resources. You're on Edgy if memory serves, what's chewing resources? Just checked on my machine with Beryl, Kiba-Dock and Screenlets running as well as a couple of torrents and playing music, and it's on about 50% (no swap used) RAM and well under 50% CPU while typing this reply. Doesn't seem too excessive to me, so I'm a bit puzzled.
Click to expand...

Perhaps my statement was misleading. What I meant to say was, that Linux, Mac, and Windows applications are about the same when it comes to resource usage. For example, Rhythmbox for Linux probably takes up just as much resources as iTunes for Mac or Windows Media Player for Windows.

I suppose I was trying to disprove the myth that Linux is better for older hardware due to its low memory usage. While that's true in some cases, (e.g. Xubuntu, Damn Small Linux, etc.), I've always told people that modern Linux works best on modern hardware. Not that Ubuntu is any worse, but it's certainly not significantly better [at resource usage].
 
Duck Tracy
O RLY? ;)
Click to expand...
Few small changes: it's at 3.6GHz now, with 2x74GB Raptors (RAID0), upgraded to 2GB of Crucial Balistix PC2 8000, got rid of the X800GT and 19" LCDs and added a second 20.1" widescreen LCD. Vista looks good. :)

Swift
I agree with what you're saying Pako. But look at ALL the different versions of Vista. Do you mean to tell me they couldn't get us a stripped down version that just did what we needed and not what they thought was cool?
Click to expand...
Go buy "Home Basic"; It's Vista without the "extra crap" (not really directed at you, Swift).

And from personal experience, if you all claim to be power users, you can turn off a lot of the 'bloat wear' you speak of.
dougiemeats
Perhaps my statement was misleading. What I meant to say was, that Linux, Mac, and Windows applications are about the same when it comes to resource usage. For example, Rhythmbox for Linux probably takes up just as much resources as iTunes for Mac or Windows Media Player for Windows.



I suppose I was trying to disprove the myth that Linux is better for older hardware due to its low memory usage. While that's true in some cases, (e.g. Xubuntu, Damn Small Linux, etc.), I've always told people that modern Linux works best on modern hardware. Not that Ubuntu is any worse, but it's certainly not significantly better [at resource usage].
Click to expand...
Indeed.

A completely striped down version of some custom-built Linux distro would run well on old hardware. So would Windows 98 (and ironically enough have just as many user-friendly features!).

Newer Linux distrobutions require decent hardware to run well.
 
Flerbizky
And whoever said XP wasn't wasn't meant to handle DX10 - BS, DX10 is just another set of features - The underlying OS has nothing to do with it - It's just another MS way of forcing Vista down your throat.....
Click to expand...

DX10 is built on the new WDDM (Windows Display Driver Model), which is made for Vista. Hence, DX10 can't work on XP.
 
Revolution.
DX10 is built on the new WDDM (Windows Display Driver Model), which is made for Vista. Hence, DX10 can't work on XP.
Click to expand...
Again, I've probably missed it, but if you run Vista Premium/Ultimate on a DX9 capable video card, does Vista tone down the visuals you get - the amount or quality - compared to a DX10 capable video card? I'm just wondering whether to hold out to the DX10 cards so I can get a better Vista experience (and obviously better game performance, which I'm not too bothered about).
 
Revolution.
DX10 is built on the new WDDM (Windows Display Driver Model), which is made for Vista. Hence, DX10 can't work on XP.
Click to expand...

Yes - Built ON as opposed to Built into - MS could package DX10 to work on top of XPs driver model... I still say it's a load of BS and MS trying to push Vista down your throat...
 
DX10 can be made to work on XP. Yes, but if you get a card to handle DX10, why not get Vista? Designed FOR Vista, so it will probably be better on Vista than XP. Know what I mean?
 
G.T
Again, I've probably missed it, but if you run Vista Premium/Ultimate on a DX9 capable video card, does Vista tone down the visuals you get - the amount or quality - compared to a DX10 capable video card? I'm just wondering whether to hold out to the DX10 cards so I can get a better Vista experience (and obviously better game performance, which I'm not too bothered about).
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, none of the Aero stuff (the blingy desktop visuals) requires/uses DX10 - DX10 is all about gaming, not the desktop interface. You should be fine with a DX9 capable card.

In other news, there's an interesting review of Vista at The Register - given that they're not exactly MS fanboys it's not overly positive, but it does raise some good points. And I agree, therefore I post it :P ;)
 
Exactly. DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 will only affect gaming, although I guess it could affect animated desktop?

I saw a side by side comparison of a game on DirectX9 and DirectX10. Insane difference, much better sky and water.
 
standard235
DX10 can be made to work on XP. Yes, but if you get a card to handle DX10, why not get Vista?
Click to expand...

Just noticed this. anywhere from around £150 (to get Aero) is a damn good reason for not buying it - the improvement just isn't worth that sort of money.

ETA - this assumes an upgrade of an existing system, if you're buying a new system then you'll essentialy get Vista for free - I'd still worry about security though.
 
Just a quick question...

My Computer Specs....

AMD 64 3200
ATi Radeon X550 256MB
1GB Corsair Value Select Ram

Ok... so how well is Vista Aero going to run on my PC?? Im thinking of Home Premium

Robin
 

Latest Posts

Back