Windows Vista any good?

Forums › Microsoft Windows › Windows Vista any good?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

19 posts

Geek

#66040 2-Apr-2007 23:55

pirating? never.

I used my uncle's DVD, installed it without a keycode, and used the
grace period. The grace period wasn't over, yet I reformatted and
installed Windows XP Professional SP2. I don't believe that is illegal as I was wishing only to evaluate it.

I realized that I did sound as if I was telling everyone to get Linux, however that was not what I meat. I shall now clarify. I have had many positive experiences with Linux, and only a few negative experiences. For example, try installing a lexmark printer on Linux... It's just NOT happening. However, it seems as though Microsoft has set the Personal Computer standards of peripherals and nearly everything can run on up-to-date Microsoft Windows systems. Yet I believe with alot of effort from Micro$oft, Windows could be as stable as i've seen Linux. With a program I use called Cedega, I have ran games like Wolfenstein Enemy Territory, Grand Theft Auto III, Uplink=) and even software such as Adobe Photoshop CS2 v9.0. Plus I love the prices that Linux OSes are =]

As both a nerd and a Certified PC and Networking Technician, I would strongly advise those who are looking into a new operating system to explore. If you want to look at what Windows Vista does, then play with it at Circuit City or Staples, or where ever you can get ahold of the ability to use it. If you want to see into Linux, then download a LiveCD of what ever system you wish and try it on your computer. The best way to learn what you like is not to learn to like it, but to get a hands on experience with it and just play. If it does what you want and how you want it then get that system. Don't let anyone tell you what your tastes in operating systems are, but let them give you suggestions.

To freitasm: I believe you may have misunderstood me. I am the type that would say "ok. If it says it will degrade my system's performance... then let's see if the performance degradation is worth how nice it looks." My answer to that question was no.

To TonyHughes: Your laptop may have been able to run Aero fine, but my Radeon Xpress 1100 has 128MB of shared memory, giving my computer only 384MB of RAM to use. After my experience with Aero, I asked around and all of my technician buddies said they would only give their customers the opportunity to purchase and have Vista installed on their computer when the computer has 1GB of RAM or more. I have even heard one say that he would look again at Vista when Service Pack 1 comes out. "...Maybe then it'll have better hardware support and stability" He said.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79289 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#66047 3-Apr-2007 07:43

Fair enough... The way I read first time it sounds like "borrowed" in the other sense.

It all looks clearer now...

robscovell

123 posts

Master Geek

#66073 3-Apr-2007 12:06

bradstewart: One thing people seem to forget is Aero is not just about looks. The whole system of using the GPU to render the desktop makes for a more stable system.

That's one of the most important points about Vista.

I tend to agree with Tony Hughes (and not just because we both like Borat and have back problems related to household chores) in that the different OSes have
their places for different tasks and demographics.

I use Mac OS X for day-to-day stuff because it is just so much easier to use that Windows XP. For example, someone emailed me some ttf fonts yesterday and to install them, all I had to do was click on them. CD burning is way less irksome on a Mac.

I also use my Mac for graphic design stuff.

I use various Linux distros for various headless servers. That is Linux's strength, although I recently recommended and installed a Mac Xserve for a client because they wanted very standard services and Xserve has a superb GUI for standard services. It was a big relief not to have to muck around with a Samba configuration file.

I do sometimes use Windows when I have to deal with something that will only run on Windows, like testing a softphone. However, IF I were a gamer or a 'businessman' I would probably use XP.

If you're not just a hobbyist geek but actually make your living by geekery, then it pays to be versatile and appreciate the roles of the different OSes in the lives of your clients.

To bring this right back on topic, I wouldn't advise anyone to upgrade to Vista for their everyday work if they have a working XP system. And I would suggest going for the XP option when buying a new PC for about the next 18 months or so, for 2 reasons. One is to allow it to bed down and get ironed out (wait for a Service Pack or 2). The other is that tech support people will need time to get to know its quirks under business conditions. That may be ultra-cautious, but it is my approach and I'm sticking to it!

professionalnet

19 posts

Geek

#66078 3-Apr-2007 12:29

I've yet to see Borat.. i'm far too cheap to purchase the DVD when its $20 here.. and I digress.

I both agree and disagree with your points.. i'm just highly opinionated

If one is truely into gaming, and desire the Micro$oft system for his or her gaming purposes, I would much rather recommend Windows 2000 Professional. I do understand it is now considered a dinosaur and is to be put up on the shelf right along with ME, 98SE, 98, 95, and 3.1. However the system requirements on Win2kPro is so small compared to the newer computers. I could guarantee you that with a SMALL amount of tweaking to 2k, my laptop could possibly cut the boot time in half compared to my heavily tweaked XPSP2Pro. I've done it before with my old desktop system consisting of:
NVidia GeForce MX4000 64MB onboard RAM
P4 2.6GHz HT
512MB RAM
The boot time and speed while it was running was completely phenomenal, yet I installed XPSP2Pro, and my boot time skyrocketed.. I could only imagine what it would be like running Vista with the Aero theme enabled. I installed Longhorn and I highly recommend not trying it.

Speaking on the order of Vista again, I would like to point something out that's completely irrelevant to what i was previously talking about. Look at the time between 95 and 98 came out, the time between 98 and Me, between Me and 2k, and the time between 2k and XP. The time span between XP and Vista's outcoming was farther apart than many of the other OSes. Personally I believe that Microsoft just threw Vista out there without completely researching just what they were selling. That's my theory of why Vista has such awful hardware support compared to other Micro$oft OSes.

It's on the topic of Vista, so if anyone could shed some light on my "conspiracy" please do.. Or perhaps this should be a different thread?

robscovell

123 posts

Master Geek

#66082 3-Apr-2007 12:38

You make an excellent point about Windows 2000. 2k is an excellent platform if your needs are fairly minimal and I have set up a number of churches and community groups with win2k running on boxes from Recycled Technology. (They buy bulk from upgrading corporates, test and refurbish the boxes, and sell them on.)

Office 2000 on win2k is probably one of the more stable, least bloated MS combinations.

Zacburden

6 posts

Wannabe Geek

#66085 3-Apr-2007 12:42

pfft... 512 mb ram...

robscovell

123 posts

Master Geek

#66086 3-Apr-2007 12:42

PS Windows ME was just a horrible disastrous mess!

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Nety

2584 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#66088 3-Apr-2007 12:57

professionalnet: If one is truely into gaming, and desire the Micro$oft system for his or her gaming purposes, I would much rather recommend Windows 2000 Professional.

Guessing you don't do a lot of gaming? A lot of newer games will not run on w2k. So ah no... Not to mention the memory limitations of 2k... and only single processor support..

I also do not agree with you saying that 2000 is quicker then XP. My experience is that it is significantly slower in almost every way. Even on older PC hardware.

Media centre PC - Case Silverstone LC16M with 2 X 80mm AcoustiFan DustPROOF, MOBO Gigabyte MA785GT-UD3H, CPU AMD X2 240 under volted, RAM 4 Gig DDR3 1033, HDD 120Gig System/512Gig data, Tuners 2 X Hauppauge HVR-3000, 1 X HVR-2200, Video Palit GT 220, Sound Realtek 886A HD (onboard), Optical LiteOn DH-401S Blue-ray using TotalMedia Theatre Power Corsair VX Series, 450W ATX PSU OS Windows 7 x64

robscovell

123 posts

Master Geek

#66090 3-Apr-2007 13:08

Nety:
professionalnet: If one is truely into gaming, and desire the Micro$oft system for his or her gaming purposes, I would much rather recommend Windows 2000 Professional.

Guessing you don't do a lot of gaming? A lot of newer games will not run on w2k. So ah no... Not to mention the memory limitations of 2k... and only single processor support..

I also do not agree with you saying that 2000 is quicker then XP. My experience is that it is significantly slower in almost every way. Even on older PC hardware.

As always, it depends on the amount of RAM. XPSP2 needs a baseline 512MB (in my experience) if you want to do anything useful in an office with it, especially if you don't have a separate graphics card. It's not always worthwhile adding extra RAM to old boxes.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79289 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#66092 3-Apr-2007 13:22

Specially those games that require DirectX 9.0 or some video cards with 128MB or more...

It took me a while to migrate my desktop from Windows 2000 to Windows XP, but after I did it I wouldn't regret.

I have been using Windows Vista Ultimate on my desktop for months before RTM, and now running Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bt on my laptop since December (from the RTM build). Still a few bugs, but now and then I look at the KB and find a new download to fix things...

professionalnet

19 posts

Geek

#66116 3-Apr-2007 14:54

Nety: Guessing you don't do a lot of gaming? A lot of newer games will not run on w2k. So ah no... Not to mention the memory limitations of 2k... and only single processor support..

I also do not agree with you saying that 2000 is quicker then XP. My experience is that it is significantly slower in almost every way. Even on older PC hardware.

To Nety, Perhaps alot of newer games does not support Win2K, but for the games that I played at that time such as Enemy Territory, Gunz, CoD, ran at tip top speed and I enjoyed them. As for the memory limitations everything has it's limitations. Even if you installed 1GB of RAM into your 2K box 1GB is plenty for most games.

I don't understand what on earth you're talking about single processor support. Windows 2000 was one of the first M$ systems that supported dual processors. Win2K did have a problem detecting the number of processors your mobo had when tried to install it over Win98 across the network. To correct that look in the settings and simply set the SET_MAX_PROCESSORS: 1 to 2 or how many ever your mobo has installed. Hey there is a limitation to max processors, and i think the maximum allowed value is a number between 70 and 80. I don't hear any whining about that limitation...

And to the admin(s): Sorry this is completely way off topic of Windows Vista, I just felt as though I wanted to say that. So back onto the topic!

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79289 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#66125 3-Apr-2007 15:18

professionalnet: M$

You mean Microsoft (MSFT) right? I know it's common use in some circles, but rather not use this around. It makes people think there's an already established prejudice in the comments, lowering the "score". I know, I know...

professionalnet: And to the admin(s): Sorry this is completely way off topic of Windows Vista, I just felt as though I wanted to say that. So back onto the topic!

I think this is ok, not that out of topic. But yes, back to Vista...

Nety

2584 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#66130 3-Apr-2007 15:44

OK sorry my bad. You are correct 2k does support 2 CPU's but is not optimised for duel core which is what most current desktops use.

As of Memory XP just seems to make better use of it. Feed it more and it will use it (as you say up to a point of course). 2k effectively tops out at a gig IMHO.

Back on Vista. I am running Vista 32 bit on a 2 year old PC that cost 1.5K when purchased. It is slower then XP but not significantly. I have just found after some initial reservations that I have grown to really like some of the things it does. Because of that I will not be going back to XP.

professionalnet

19 posts

Geek

#66215 4-Apr-2007 01:31

freitasm: professionalnet: M$

You mean Microsoft (MSFT) right? I know it's common use in some circles, but rather not use this around. It makes people think there's an already established prejudice in the comments, lowering the "score". I know, I know...

I either meant microsoft or I was talking about a BASIC string

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79289 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#66225 4-Apr-2007 08:38

Oooooh. Basic strings! Yay! This is old stuff...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4