View Full Version : Best Way To Load Vista
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1537662573997376122&q=vista&total=38869&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
wow. a CD and a manual in a shredder. thats got to be original... he obviously has a copy of the CDkey and a DVD clone backup.
nicky munchkin
05-08-2007, 14:53
Wouldn't it be funny if he actually thought the shredder was a computer :D
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1537662573997376122&q=vista&total=38869&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
LOL i love that guys attitude :D
Personally I am not going to touch Vista until at least SP1 is out, trust me, when you work in IT you get to see and hear the "issues" from the horses mouth.
nicky munchkin
05-08-2007, 17:07
SP1 is going to be a rush job to try and make more people buy it. People are waiting until SP2 now.
Theres a lot of mixed opinion about that. Some people are saying its just going to be a few updates to trick people into buying it, others are saying their completely moving the kernel from NT6.0 to NT6.1 :confused:. I didn't even realise that was possible with just a service pack! I'll find the thing that says it later.
Remember:
NT4.0 = Windows NT4
NT5.0 = Windows 2000
NT5.1 = Windows XP
NT6.0 = Windows Vista
NT6.1 = supposedly Vista SP1???
Whether you like it or hate it you know you will have to use it. I adopted it early and its okay, not so much crap like XP- MSN Explorer and Windows Messenger are gone. Most of the tools with Vista are actually useful regardless of the fact that they look a dead ringer of OSX :rolleyes:
I like his shredder...the way the bin pulls out of it.
i have both Vista and XP and i dont have a problem with Vista at all. the only reason i havnt moved over to Vista fully is due to the preformance issue of my PC. (guna build a new gaming rig for vista) i honastly dont know what everyoen is whinging about. when people say they are waiting for SP2 thats just total BS as they havnt even Tried SP1 yet.
"look at me! im so hardcore! im waiting for SP2 even though SP1 is not released!"
LennyTheBruce
05-08-2007, 17:54
uuhh;413046']i have both Vista and XP and i dont have a problem with Vista at all. the only reason i havnt moved over to Vista fully is due to the preformance issue of my PC. (guna build a new gaming rig for vista) i honastly dont know what everyoen is whinging about. when people say they are waiting for SP2 thats just total BS as they havnt even Tried SP1 yet.
"look at me! im so hardcore! im waiting for SP2 even though SP1 is not released!"
Oh dear. I counted twelve spelling and grammatical errors in that post. :rolleyes:
uuhh;413046']i have both Vista and XP and i dont have a problem with Vista at all. the only reason i havnt moved over to Vista fully is due to the preformance issue of my PC. (guna build a new gaming rig for vista) i honastly dont know what everyoen is whinging about. when people say they are waiting for SP2 thats just total BS as they havnt even Tried SP1 yet.
"look at me! im so hardcore! im waiting for SP2 even though SP1 is not released!"
Oh dear. I counted twelve spelling and grammatical errors in that post. :rolleyes:
Nit-picking aside, I do believe the man has a point :rolleyes:
movinginthedark
05-08-2007, 18:39
Either way - It's bound to be more secure than previous versions of MS OS's. And visually, although it does resemble mac in many ways - is a nicer environment to work in. Compare it to such things as Win ME and NT, it's pretty good.
But personally - I would go with OSX.
.oO(thinking of top gear here)
some say he's got more money than sense, and if you go on the internet you can see the b.s he tells... no it's not the stig, its Bill Gates!
That is the funniest thing I have seen for a few weeks :D
SP1 is going to be a rush job to try and make more people buy it. People are waiting until SP2 now.
well i'm going to touch it for a long long long long long long time :D
well playing the same game in vista and xp x64 i get 28 more fps, come on tell me, wheres the improvement there? personally i think vista is a waste of nearly 14gb of hard drive space, as im not the only one its presented nothing but problems too, theres more people that have had problems with it than you think, it looks nicer but thats where it ends for me im afraid. id rather put the disk space too good use and replace the crap with a load of music
what specs did you use to rate that? as i understand it, previous gen hardware will not be optimal for vista,i personally see Vista Less bloated than XP ever was considering most of the things Vista comes with are useful, like Media centre and so on. However XP come with a lot of "useless" junk.
Media centre? useful?
HAHAHAHAHA...
Its just another way M$ try to make us pay more when it wasp previously in a different packaged OS if you needed it.
Pay more? My copy of Vista was comparable in price to MCE (and i think it was actually a tiny bit cheaper, can't totally remember...)
uuhh;413077']what specs did you use to rate that? as i understand it, previous gen hardware will not be optimal for vista,i personally see Vista Less bloated than XP ever was considering most of the things Vista comes with are useful, like Media centre and so on. However XP come with a lot of "useless" junk.
sorry but vista is crap, and totally full of memory eating rubbish that youre never going to use, as i said in another post vista screws my 4gb ram and wastes half of it on pathetic menus and eye candy, if youre a gamer you can do without that, so for that and the fact that its no better for gaming at all, in fact quiet a lot worse for my games, i binned it, and am very happy with x64 xp.
lol at media centre too, what a load of toss, i mean what the hell are you gaining from that! think about it, when everyone switched from windows for worgroups 3.11 to windows 95, everyone went WOW! thats better, and really different there was a difference, but switching from a perfectly good and working os like xp32/64 to vista, would be stupid and a waste of dosh. all its done is presented everyone i know with problems that frankly you could do without, one of the main problems for me was no midi/game port support on my sound blaster audigy 2zs which i really needed for my synths, and theres no way im binning my soundcard and buying new keyboards just for the sake of an os, graphics problems, lol where do i start, well it goes on and on but the fact is its a useless os for a lot of things.
sorry but vista is crap, and totally full of memory eating rubbish that youre never going to use, as i said in another post vista screws my 4gb ram and wastes half of it on pathetic menus and eye candy, if youre a gamer you can do without that, so for that and the fact that its no better for gaming at all, in fact quiet a lot worse for my games, i binned it, and am very happy with x64 xp.
lol at media centre too, what a load of toss, i mean what the hell are you gaining from that! think about it, when everyone switched from windows for worgroups 3.11 to windows 95, everyone went WOW! thats better, and really different there was a difference, but switching from a perfectly good and working os like xp32/64 to vista, would be stupid and a waste of dosh. all its done is presented everyone i know with problems that frankly you could do without, one of the main problems for me was no midi/game port support on my sound blaster audigy 2zs which i really needed for my synths, and theres no way im binning my soundcard and buying new keyboards just for the sake of an os, graphics problems, lol where do i start, well it goes on and on but the fact is its a useless os for a lot of things.
Media Center is far from useless, i use it all the time for watching my movies with a remote.it may well be useless to you if you do not use your pc for anything but work/games. and your not paying more considering a MCE2005 costs thesame if not more than vista... (as i remember it) its strange that you think that a neewer and more modern OS should use Less memory than XP considering XP was built for hardware back in 2001 indeed many people back then said XP was a memory whore and prefered Win98 or 2000. My vista licance cost me less than my Gaming BK and Mouse. so to complain about the price of vista is also a bit silly if you spend extream amounts on things like 4GB of ram and Top end Video cards. Yes vista uses more memory (considering the viual improvments of Vista i think its memory well spent)
if you consider software that changes and evolves and gets better a bad thing, then Vista is the Devil. just as XP was back in 2001
TriggerHappy
06-08-2007, 08:02
If you understood how vista works you would know why it uses so much memory . I think you can spare a bit anyway with 4GB!
ID of though youd be used to compatibility problems anyway as to use 4Gb in XP you need the 64 bit version.
I like vista, lots of little features add to to make an improvement but at the moment certain things I need for my company just wont work with it im afraid, its always there on dual boot though :)
xp32 works fine with 4gb ram, just go to msconfig and limit your memory to 2048 as i dual boot with x64 i only use all the 4gb on x64, (unlike vista its all shown correctly) the reason why i use both xp32 and 64 is some games dont work on 64 therefore its handy, and when xp was launched it didnt give you half the problems vista does now. sorry but vista is a sodding nightmare and you need a million fixes to get it running properly, also i cannot see any real performance gains at all, vista is turning out to be another windows ME all over again with the problems it has, no i dont have a problem running vista with my 4gb ram, but on x64 xp its being put to better use as i do not use all the crap that gets installed, also i do not like microsoft having access to my pc whenever they like using vista.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-508554145717030933&q=vista+is+crap&total=85&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
Media Centre is useless. I watch DVDs, TV and movies, and I am completely fine with opening them from a folder, why should I pay extra for a remote which I do not need just to open files which I can do perfectly well without it.
Not exactly useless for an HTPC though....?
Im sorry, but XP was a nightmare when it was first released. 7 years of patches have resolved many of its issues though, and i love XP. Vista installed on my PC fine, no problems, detected and installed all my ardware automaticaly (this is a Nforce 3 system with a X800pro) with 1GB of ram only 33% of it is used while idling. this may seem like a lot but my Gaming rig has 2GB and has 24% memory usage at idle running XP Pro. i dont see how Microsoft has access to your PC. or files w/ vista. that is not the case for me.
Jacob, maybe you dont understand what media centre does. It stores all of your video library, all of your music, pictures, TV and DVD's win one program that is usable anywhere in your room via an Optimal IR remote. some people dont like sitting at a desk to watch movies or play music.
another reason to stick with XP where everything works.
name me one DX10 game that works? increasingly software developers are releasing Vista optimised software.
Yeah, but my rig is not an HTPC, the same with 95% of rigs if not more, I am sure, so why don't microsoft sell media centre in a separate OS for people who actually want it. I have far better things to spend money on than a PC that basically does what sky+ does except with a few extra features.what are you talkign about? you do not pay extra for media centre, you just buy the Vista package you want and media centre is part of the version you buy.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/choose.mspx
bardaman
06-08-2007, 13:14
ROFL
I have absolutely no need for vista except DirectX10 and TBH I completely hate M$ for only releasing that on vista only in the hope it makes people buy their bloated crap.
Yeah, what he said. Esp. the "bloated crap" bit.
I'm desperately awaiting a good DirectX10 game so I can justify even having Vista loaded.
yet,
yet...
Lost planet on the other hand does work with DX9 but its recommended you have Vista for DX10.
nicky munchkin
06-08-2007, 13:57
ROFL
I have absolutely no need for vista except DirectX10 and TBH I completely hate M$ for only releasing that on vista only in the hope it makes people buy their bloated crap.
XP is fine, and nicky, mine is not full of rubbish, don't know what sites you visit :rolleyes: , and as for rubbish like windows messenger, didn't you remove that? :eek:
Nope I used it! No 14 year old chavs sending you BS custom emoticons (although yes you can turn it off in MSN8) and a program that loads much quicker and has a more simple interface than MSN8. The reason I said Windows Messenger was crap was because most don't use it, MS made it hard to uninstall, and yes in the end I got annoyed at it and started using MSN.
I'm taking media next year at 6th form and all the tools like DVD maker, Movie Maker, etc. which are included with Vista will come in very handy. Have you actually sat down and used Vista or are you just incapable of making your own decisions and just going along with a bunch of idiots who cant afford it/cant be bothered to install it/are p*ssed that it wont run on their computer even though they only bought it a while ago from their beloved PC Guru- PCWorld. Vista's tools are not crap, there useful. Unlike XP which included an outdated brower, msn explorer, and Windows Messnger.
I love Vista, I don't play games at all so no I have not had any problems what so ever. I don't understand what everyone's problem is with it, it looks twice as good as XP's trashy theme (that looks like it was designed by a 4 year old). So you have to choose between that horrible theme or the classic theme which has been around for 14 years (yes 14 because the Chicago beta of Win95 dated 1993 was the first to include the grey task bar).
OS X vs 10 was released in 2001, a brand new OS based on a new secure Unix kernel (although it had some teething problems), way ahead of its time. Around the same time XP was released. It looked like a hippy version of Windows 95. Not really many new features than its predessecor and it was damn bloated. Yes Vista needs higher system requirements but at least it actually has something to show for that (3D view, DX10, a decent theme, useful tools) unlike XP. Bloated (in computer language) is defined as an OS that requires high system requirements for its time (Vista can run on 256meg RAM and a sub 1ghz processor, so this is not true) and includes not many more features than its predecessor (which as I have proven is not true). So I would not consider Vista bloatware at all.
vista is a badly coded and terrible os, it seems all the older hardware works ok but thats not the point of buying a new os, stick with xp trust me its tried and tested and runs ok,
i cant actually see any point of buying it anyway if it did work properly
nicky munchkin
06-08-2007, 20:44
vista is a badly coded and terrible os,
What are you talking about? Do you have a source for this? Have you looked at Vista's code? (Which is illegal by the way).
Instead of making new code for each operating system, people have learned that if you base your code on its predecessor which is tried and tested, you end up with a much more secure piece of software. Therefore if Vista contains bad code then surely so would XP.
And why should it not contain a few loopholes, remember when XP was released, it had no firewall, could not support drives larger than 40gig (I think), and it was a haven for spyware and other garbage (and still is without a lot of protection).
i cant actually see any point of buying it anyway if it did work properly
You mean apart from the fact that new games wont play on XP, Vista will be much more secure when a SP is released, it looks much better, and MS will be ending support for XP home soon after the end of this year/whenever SP3 is released (if indeed it is!).
Whatever you think about Vista now, people were exactly the same when XP was released, and everyone seems to love that ugly POS.
nicky munchkin
06-08-2007, 20:48
I stopped reading there. You are talking pure crap and TBH, I would call you a Microsoft fanboy but I don't want to lower myself to your level .
No I wasn't talking about you, I know you hate them, I mean the others. Please read the rest of my post I wasn't flaming you I just wanted to have a reasonable debate.
Edit: Oh and [M]uhh I totally agree with everything you have said.
Retroanaconda
06-08-2007, 21:16
I have Vista, I think it's a great improvement over XP. It needs better hardware in order to run properly in comparison to what XP can get by on, but that's how new software works. People don't complain about Half-Life 2 being bloated with all those extra graphics, when it's really the same core thing as Half-Life (and yes I know graphics are more important in games, but I find the Vista interface much nicer to work in, and the window-management tools are useful).
I have 2GB of RAM, and that's DDR1 RAM running at 200Mhz, and it seems to cope fine with that. And 2GB is becoming the standard for new PCs these days, 4GB being for those who like to be ahead. I play a lot of games, and I have yet to find one that doesn't work on Vista. Source-based games, Far Cry, Halo 2, Medieval 2 - Total War, Quake 4, UT2004, Company of Heroes, Rollercoaster Tycoon 2 & 3, Vice City. All of those games work brilliantly on my computer, they play smooth and with nice frame rates. My average FPS on HL2 is up over 200 (it's limited to 300, and that's with everything maxxed out, HDR, Anti-Aliasing, AF etc. And at 1920*1200 on a 24" screen). That may be because of the 8800GTX, but still. Vista certainly doesn't stop me playing games at all, and it will become even more useful as time goes on and we see DX10 games like Crysis (drool).
Security hasn't ever really been a problem for me. Have never had antivirus or firewall software, and never will. A decent hardware firewall in my router coupled with some common sense on what you download hasn't failed me in the past.
There are some compatibility issues with older software (Visual Basic 6 needs Aero switched off to run, but it does run), and I wish it didn't take up quite as much HDD space on install (although that won't be a problem on my new rig with larger drives). But I'd rather have the newer software and be at the forefront of the techology each generation, even if it means teething issues (hasn't so far :)), than sit back and go on about how the old stuff was better.
Just my two cents
I stopped reading there. You are talking pure crap and TBH, I would call you a Microsoft fanboy but I don't want to lower myself to your level .
His disdain for the average computer buyer aside, it would seem that he knows more about Vista than you do mate...
oh im bored but people stick to what you know works and xp has given me no problems at all (x64)
as for vistas bad coding well thats all over the net, you saying it professionals are wrong?
Mr fat Wallet gates has admitted that vista has a big problem with loads of hardware
memory is wasted on running crap that you will never use
as ive posted earlier theres no way on earth im getting rid of hardware that works perfectly just to accomodate for vista
installing takes twice as long as usual
its terrible for starforce games
its slower than xp64
you may as well bin your soundblaster audigy2zs in vista if you use one
it goes on and on....
TBH I find the new vista colour scheme to be ugly, black and bright green do not go!
I don't know which Vista colour scheme you've seen, but mine is black and pale blue and that is the default.
Stephen
nicky munchkin
06-08-2007, 23:01
Hmm, maybe it was a non default theme but TBH all the vista themes look bad.
But this looks good?
http://www.db-server.org.uk/files/XP.jpg
I don't know which Vista colour scheme you've seen, but mine is black and pale blue and that is the default.
Stephen
In fact that, along with classic is the only theme
as for vistas bad coding well thats all over the net, you saying it professionals are wrong?ill take that bet, show me one professionals coder that has examined Vistas Source and said it is Bad Code. Anther lesson you should learn that just cos its all around the net, does not make it fact.
Mr fat Wallet gates has admitted that vista has a big problem with loads of hardware
it sure does, if the manufactorer does not make drivers for vista, then thats true. all of the hardware i still own works fine, including my audigy 2 ZS thats in my vista system.
memory is wasted on running crap that you will never use
What? you would rather 9 or 10% of your memory to sit empty incase you deside to work on photoshop and 3dsmax while playing HL2E2? what is memory, if its never used...
installing takes twice as long as usualWow a OS that takes up twice as much hard drive space also requires twice as long to install... not that it matters, considering you dont install vista more than once.
its terrible for starforce games
You got that one the wrong way around my friend.
its slower than xp64
what exactly is slower?
not true, there are loads of skins out there that look much nicer than either (eve a Microsoft one first found in MCE but now downloadable for all versions of of XP!) and TBH I find the new vista colour scheme to be ugly, black and bright green do not go!
with vista you can edit or change your theme colors with a touch of a few keys.
Just as XP (SP2) can actually run on a 233Mhz chip with 64MB of RAM, but actually running it on that would be about as enjoyable as diving face first into broken glass and acid.
Vista IS bloatware, it needs over 14GB for an install! Anyone who doesn't call that bloatware is lying, no argument needed (and don't go 'lol yeah so what my HDD is so big LOLZ!!1, because nobody cares.
it maybe bloated to you, but to me, the 3D desktop the side bar, the desktop tools, the preformance tools, media center, are all far from useless.
My other main issue with Vista is the amount of crap you need to disable, modify or remove, like UAC, possibly one of the crappiest, least useful things to be included in an OS ever, and even when all that is fixed, you have an os that uses 2-3 times the resources of XP for less performance all for the sake of Aero - 'zomfg I can have windows in 3d!!1 BEST OS EVAR!!111shift11!'.
on XP i also have to disable a lot of things to find it usable, Asfor the reaurce hungry aero you claim that causes your pc to slow down, just disable it and go back to your XP style.
bootup05
07-08-2007, 04:43
I also have absolutley no problems with Vista. Yes its visual theme is MUCH better than XP. I agree that the system requirements are a little high if you like to play decent games whilst using the OS, but what else do you expect in 2007? AMD/Intels hardware prices are coming down so hard its not exactly a hard thing to do nowdays to afford a Vista capable PC!
Many of the features included are usefull for its users, I use Media Centre, sure, not for Music or Video's but its great for TV viewing and recording, much better than any of the Software avaliable on the net or included with TV cards. To me the features included with Vista are much more friendlier, more useful and appeal to a much wider userbase than XP's.
It's up to people what they prefer TBH, and my vote goes for Vista.
installing takes twice as long as usual
Rubbish. On my machine, Vista installed in about half the time that XP x64 used to, basically because it expands an image file to the hard disk and then installs everything from there.
Stephen
uuhh;413218']ill take that bet, show me one professionals coder that has examined Vistas Source and said it is Bad Code. Anther lesson you should learn that just cos its all around the net, does not make it fact.
it sure does, if the manufactorer does not make drivers for vista, then thats true. all of the hardware i still own works fine, including my audigy 2 ZS thats in my vista system
What? you would rather 9 or 10% of your memory to sit empty incase you deside to work on photoshop and 3dsmax while playing HL2E2? what is memory, if its never used...
Wow a OS that takes up twice as much hard drive space also requires twice as long to install... not that it matters, considering you dont install vista more than once.
You got that one the wrong way around my friend.
what exactly is slower?
does your gameport work on your audigy2zs?, microprofit lol have gone out of there way to make computing a bad experience for vista users, the memory is NOT being put to good use, what i call a good use is playing a game on one monitor and playing a film on the other whilst downloading, as for starforce how come vista needs a fix, starforce was out years before vista was, i play toca race driver 3 on x64 with starforce with no probs until vista is on the scene then its a million fixes, and it takes so long to install because the os expands 4.7gb dvd or whatever it is into 13gb, 3 dvds would of been better and give people the option to install media centre on 1 dvd, all the eye candy functions on another dvd and the os on another, making it a 3dvd set would have been better. as for installing vista once thats a rare thing what ive seen,
as for "what is slower"? well 1. boot time and shutdown time, 2.games and 3. the way its set out. how can vista be faster when its using the same ntfs file system but running a million programs in the background that actually you could easily do without.
a lot of manufacturers dont make drivers for vista because they know its a problematic os and most of the time it gives the hardware companies a bad name. unlike mac osx macintosh actually make software for there hardware better and more of it. i mean think about it hardware only seems to have a problem when using vista.
if you can give me or millions of others a good enough reason to switch from a perfectly good os like x64 xp thats working well with no problems to vista that costs about £170 and is full of problems?
then we will make the switch, but do your sums and twinned with the fact that youre actually not gaining anything, it doesnt make sense.
microsoft sorry microprofit.. have not got it right after all these years its pathetic really, as im one of the few thats actually enjoying my computer playing games and using my music software properly without the need to buy a new os, instead of using my pc to fix problems which im pretty sure was not meant for. same goes again for mac users, good on you!
its like comparing tried and tested euphoria djs, to a 14 year old boy whos never been on the decks before, the end result is better.
if somethings good you dont just change it only tweak it to make it a little better like the family of xp os's, but when they made vista they were only thinking of how much money they could make, not the end user.
does your gameport work on your audigy2zs?,
Why are you blaming MS for the fact that Creative are off the ball at writing drivers? They have had long enough to get them ready.
microprofit lol have gone out of there way to make computing a bad experience for vista users, the memory is NOT being put to good use, what i call a good use is playing a game on one monitor and playing a film on the other whilst downloading
I've yet to see a graphics card that would allow that, so it's nothing to do with Microsoft.
as for starforce how come vista needs a fix, starforce was out years before vista was
Because Starforce installs low level drivers to work. Guess what, they don't work on the 64-bit version of XP either! How do I know? Because I've tried it.
it takes so long to install because the os expands 4.7gb dvd or whatever it is into 13gb,
My personal experience is that Vista installs faster than XP ever did on my rig.
1. boot time and shutdown time, 2.games and 3. the way its set out
Boot up and shutdown times seem similar to me. Games are no slower (or if they are, it's down to drivers that are not yet optimised, again, not MS's fault. The way it is set out is different, I agree and I don't like that much as I am still getting used to it, but learning a new OS always takes time.
Stephen
vista has no built in support and never will have for creative game port, its not in the os
vista has no built in support and never will have for creative game port, its not in the os
Im sorry, i didnt know that, i threw out anything that used those old legacy ports over 6 years ago along with my Windows 98 CD's. thats just nitpicking, how many people actualy cry over that? Maybe they did not invluded them with the OS cos they are considered outdated.
Whats stopping you from running two moniters, one for a game one for a movie?
Starforce is the worst software in teh world, i would not care if it didnt work as i would download a crack for it if i played a game that wanted to install it. last tiem i used that crap on XP i had a few BSOD. thats not Microsofts fault that the game is not compatable with Vista. the developers should have check it. Rather the publishers should have checked it considering they choose the copy protection.
Swaping CD's to install an application is one of the most annoyign thigns i have to deal with. that would make vista more of a hassle to install.
If you dotn want media center just deleat the icon from your start menu, and its gone. if your crying over a 4gigs of space required by vista cant you just get Vista Basic instead. it does not have MC or Aero. its a stripped down version.
Ok, seriously, who needs a game port anymore? They're about as out-dated as Windows 3.1. Oh, wait, that would be because they're OLDER than Windows 3.1. Why should Microsoft support technology like that? It's like saying they should provide driver support for ISA expansion cards...why?
The fact that Creative has managed to keep it alive this long is either a minor miracle; or an example of a corporation resisting change. There is a reason Creative cards are the only widely used hardware that still provide a game port - nobody else can be bothered. Can you blame them? My joystick is USB. The various gamepads I've had have all been USB.
and it takes so long to install because the os expands 4.7gb dvd or whatever it is into 13gb, 3 dvds would of been better and give people the option to install media centre on 1 dvd, all the eye candy functions on another dvd and the os on another, making it a 3dvd set would have been better. as for installing vista once thats a rare thing what ive seen
Really? You really think installing the entire thing from a DVD is going to be quicker than installing it from a hard drive? Even if it's compressed and it has to be copied onto the drive to start with, it's about as good as it's going to get. In my experience Vista installation has been faster than XP and 'equivalent' Linux distributions. I've only seen Mac OS, older versions of Windows (i.e. (2000 and 98SE), and the 'slimmer' Linux distros install faster.
as for "what is slower"? well 1. boot time and shutdown time,
Not on my system. And I've never seen Vista hang while shutting down. I've seen XP (literally) take hours to shut down at times. Vista has never done that to me.
2.games
Depends on the game, but yes I'll concede that one. People expect to get the same (or better) performance from the same system when they've just installed a new OS that uses more RAM than XP does...and they're surprised when they don't get performance that is quite as good? Right.......
the way its set out. how can vista be faster when its using the same ntfs file system but running a million programs in the background that actually you could easily do without.
XP does that as well. Windows always has; it's not a reason to bash Vista specifically.
a lot of manufacturers dont make drivers for vista because they know its a problematic os and most of the time it gives the hardware companies a bad name. unlike mac osx macintosh actually make software for there hardware better and more of it. i mean think about it hardware only seems to have a problem when using vista.
That, I'm afraid, is complete and utter...erm...dangly bits (I hate word censors lol). It's only old hardware from companies that don't give a damn about customers that are affected. I bought a new sound card (well, it's not really a card but meh) and only then realised that there might not be Vista drivers for it. But...yep, there were. Had been ever since Vista was released. With other companies I wouldn't have been so fortunate.
If some companies can do it, the others are just messing around and wasting our time. That or they're hoping you'll buy a newer product from them. You can't blame Microsoft for that. Vista has been around for years; it's not like MS suddenly produced it out of their hat.
if you can give me or millions of others a good enough reason to switch from a perfectly good os like x64 xp thats working well with no problems to vista that costs about £170 and is full of problems?
then we will make the switch, but do your sums and twinned with the fact that youre actually not gaining anything, it doesnt make sense.
£55, if you use your brain a little. And you say it's full of problems, but I've not had any. Granted, some people have. But some people are also trying to use it on obsolete hardware (and I mean properly obsolete, not just a couple of years 'old') or use it with programs that were designed for Windows 95/98. Well duh!
as im one of the few thats actually enjoying my computer playing games and using my music software properly without the need to buy a new os
Sorry mate...but you've got XP 64-bit, correct? How old is that? Only about a year younger than Vista? And let me guess, you had standard XP before that? And maybe 2000 before that? Yeah, never bought a new OS have you. Not in your life. What you have is only really a stop-gap measure between XP and Vista. Congratulations on that wise purchase. If memory serves, to begin with the 64-bit version of XP was possibly the most problematic version of Windows since the dreaded ME. :rolleyes:
[M]uuhh, Archaon, I think we are wasting our time here. We're dealing with a couple of guys who have jumped on the bandwagon of Vista bashing and who are probably too young to remember the launch of XP and the problems people encountered there.
I do think it is ironic that Aztec is advocating the use of XP x64, which has to be the most poorly supported, minority OS that I have ever used, with much poorer manufacturer support than Vista.
Maybe we should stop feeding the trolls?
Cheers,
Stephen
nicky munchkin
07-08-2007, 15:07
I do think it is ironic that Aztec is advocating the use of XP x64, which has to be the most poorly supported, minority OS that I have ever used, with much poorer manufacturer support than Vista.
Agreed!
This is really pathetic how little you seem to know about Vista, you read useless stuff on the web (just because its on the web doesn't mean it's true) and believe it like a couple of idiots. Have you actually sat down and used Vista at all?
Oh and if the computer is a modern computer (lets say dual core, 1 gig RAM minimum) then Vista will boot and shutdown MUCH quicker than XP. Its only when you install it on older computers (celerons, 512meg ram) that it takes ages.
XP is bloatware, not Vista. It contained no new features than 2000 and everyone saw the eye candy and though "oo shiny". Vista at least has a lot of new features that are actually useful.
God I feel like a fecking stuck LP.
nicky munchkin
07-08-2007, 15:17
seriously, I don't care about the install time, its more the fact it uses 14GB, and yet do we see any benefits for all this extra disk space? nope.
You mean except decent boot/shutdown times (probably instant after a SP or 2), DX10, a decent theme, useful tools, support for future devices.
You can't seem to realise that every time a new OS is released (with the exception of Linux) people moan that its buggy, bloated etc. It happened with 95, 98, NT, 2k, and yes even your precious XP.
You wouldn't know a good Operating System if it came up and stuck its floppy in your disk drive.
as for vistas bad coding well thats all over the net, you saying it professionals are wrong?
The code for Windows is locked away secure. One time some source code for XP leaked on the P2P's and Microsoft had a field day. Remember when Microsoft were forced by the DOJ or whoever to release some code of 2k and there was a whole lot of crap in there. Think it was fixed in the space of a year between 2k and XP coming out. Not an effing chance I'm guessing.
Oh and very funny Fat Jez :D
You wouldn't know a good Operating System if it came up and stuck its floppy in your disk drive.
You don't need to use a floppy with Vista any more, you can load drivers during the install with a USB drive.
Sorry, couldn't resist! :D
Cheers,
Stephen
Drivers? What drivers? Only things I needed were audio and graphics lol. :p
Drivers? What drivers?
SATA RAID drivers usually, not that I've needed to - they have all been built in so far, which is more than could be said for XP.
Reinstalling XP was the only thing I needed a floppy in my rig for, not sorry to see it go!
Cheers,
Stephen
I knew what you meant mate, I was commenting that I've not needed to do it with Vista. ;)
Do you think they've given up arguing how evil Vista is then? :D
it might be a real hog when it comes to disk space, but I still see a lot of advantages to XP (and a lot of things that bug hell out of me too ;))
Cheers,
Stephen
I always modify my Windows installation so it doesn't bother me. Mine uses about 8-9GB. It's a lot, but when you can get a 500Gb drive for £60...
i personally cant see a reason for anyone in this day and age complaining about 14gigs of diskspace considering the current Pound to GB ratio.
uuhh;413302']i personally cant see a reason for anyone in this day and age complaining about 14gigs of diskspace considering the current Pound to GB ratio.
I can, but only when they can't find anything else to find fault with...;)
Funny how things have gone quiet now!
cheers,
Stephen
no not gone quiet were just bored now with listing vista flaws, oh i do believe you can run xp from a memory stick now? well good luck trying to find a 15gb memory card, oops another flaw lol (a little beside the point but still a good one)
i would rather spend the £160 on hardware like a big fat 500gb hard drive and new dvd-dl drive or a new alphacool 240x128 internal lcd screen.
people only like it cause it looks nice
like i said no performance is gained from using it so its a load of C**P
oh i do believe you can run xp from a memory stick now?
Why would you want to? It's going to be slower than running it from a hard disk, you can't use the excuse of moving it to a different machine since the product activation will trip and you won't have the drivers.
Seems a bit pointless to me?
Stephen
nicky munchkin
07-08-2007, 22:38
I really can't be bothered .I have made my point. Vista is nothing new, a lot more resources for the sake of aero and some useless ***ty rubbish like UAC, and a waste of £150.
Vista is cheaper than XP at least (if you are comparing the corresponding versions). Whoever said XP home compares to home premium Vista was wrong.
Vista Basic compares to XP home and Vista is cheaper.
Vista HPrem compares to MCE and Vista is cheaper.
Vista Business compares to XP Pro and Vista is cheaper.
Vista Ultimate compares to nothing.
Thats all OEM btw.
I really can't be bothered .I have made my point. Vista is nothing new, a lot more resources for the sake of aero and some useless ***ty rubbish like UAC, and a waste of £150.
Want some proof?
Vista Basic http://www.kustompcs.co.uk/acatalog/info_6634.html
vs
XP home http://www.kustompcs.co.uk/acatalog/info_6603.html
that makes XP £9 more expensive.
Vista Home Premium http://www.kustompcs.co.uk/acatalog/info_6635.html
Vs
XP MCE http://www.kustompcs.co.uk/acatalog/info_6609.html
Vista still £1 cheaper. Whoops! you still need to buy a decoder with XP MCE!
if Kustom stocked vista business im sure it would also be cheaper than XP Pro
Whats more Vista comes with Windows Defender (anti spyware) and a better version of windows firewall. that is not only helping new users, but its helping the Internet not being bogged down with viri.
Saying you can put XP on a memory stick is scraping the barrel. Firstly this was not possible in XP first 3 years of release, and its only possible now as XP is very old and dated thus flash memory technology has made huge expansions since then.in 4 or 5 years or even shorter im sure you could do the same with vista... but there is still that question of why you would want to do it, and why is that a reason Not to buy vista.
people only like it cause it looks nice Not a sngle person in this thread have said "i only like vista cos it looks nice". again, backup your claims.
nicky munchkin
08-08-2007, 12:14
Yeah Vista business and XP Pro are basically the same price (£90)
And thats only due to the price drop of XP/MCE. Until a month or two ago Vista was between £10-£30 cheaper than the corresponding version of XP.
Oh and running any heavy Operating system from a Flash drive will bugger it up within the month due to the fact that theres only so many times you can write to it (and XP is constantly writing).
Oh and you can get 16 and 32 gigabyte flash drives so its just as possible to run Vista from a flash drive too.
nicky munchkin
08-08-2007, 12:43
you trying to tell me people actually USE Windows defender and Windows Firewall? ...
I just leave it turned on to accompany my hardware firewall, as it provides outbound protection unlike the hardware firewall. What you don't realise is that Windows Firewall for Vista is a great improvement over XP firewall. This is a god send for the internet because n00bs who don't know anything about PC sercurity will still be protected.
Vista basic? Well, sorry to tell you, but that is ****. It doesn't have DX10
WTF? Vista home basic has full DX10 support! You thinking of Vista Starter? Vista home basic resembles XP home the most and doesn't have Aero etc. so I thought it would be the version that you would use.
Oh and I have reinstalled Vista OEM on my machine about 4 times since I bought a copy.
Vista basic? Well, sorry to tell you, but that is ****. It doesn't have DX10, has less functionality than XP and only supports a resolution of 1024.
Are you trying to tell me people actually USE Windows defender and Windows Firewall? ...
Sucks to be them!
I cant find any information that states Vista Basic does not have DX10 or is resolution locked. please link me your source.
And you underestimate how many people do not use a 3rd party firewall or antispyware software. those people that buy prebuilt PCs that make up the majority of the pc owners.
Doh, nicky beat me to it. jacob have you read any real info on vista or just Microsoft hater blogs?
oh wow, an OEM version of vista is only £75 because I really want to be crippled by an EULA that means M$ own all my money if I ever want to reinstall it...
Aztec was telling us to use XP Pro x64, which is only available as an OEM install. Same for XP MCE.
So Nicky's price comparison seems fair to me on that basis.
I use Windows Defender, since it doesn't cost me anything to have it. I also use the Windows Firewall, since it backs up the hardware firewall on my router and warns me of anything making an outbound request.
Cheers,
Stephen
nicky munchkin
08-08-2007, 13:47
Actually, it was the M$ website. IIRC Basic was designed for 3rd world countries where they could get it for about £5
Thats Vista Starter. Its not available in the States, The EU, Australasia, or any other developed countries like Japan etc.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.