Solid reason NOT to upgrade to vista (speed)

[Daveb2012]

Who knew?

"The users, who sound pro-Vista for the most part, have vented about a variety of speed issues on Microsoft's Performance & Maintenance forum. "I have XP and Vista running side-by-side [but] I twiddle my thumbs waiting for certain apps to load up on the Vista machine while the load is instantaneous on the older XP machine," wrote a user identified as William. "I've tweaked it as best as I could with the info available and I am still very disappointed."

"Thus, it was no surprise that Microsoft denied that Vista is slower to boot, reboot or shut down. "Start-up and shutdown times will vary based on the configuration of the PC by the OEM," said a company spokeswoman today. "But we have seen, based on both internal and external measurement and testing, that most Windows Vista users experience very quick responses when using sleep, shutdown or restart."

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=windows&articleId=9015905&taxonomyId=125

[Hicks]

Hahah what a bunch of :banana::banana::banana::banana: head at MS. " oh it's not slower, thats just you, your wrong, we are blatenly sticking up for our crappy OS", that costs an arm and a leg.

God knows what im gonna do when Crysis hits. I seriously don't want Vista, unless it's improved a heck of a lot by then.

[adamsleath]

speed need greed ... s p eeeed...i'll wait til next h/ware upgrade if i can ....but maybe theyll fix vista or make apps / drivers better in the mean time??

or else crush the rumour that vista reduces application performance...

vista :owned: by xp?

[RaZz!]

i definately hate vista, but with rc1 i never had any boot or shutdown speed issues. i have to admit that vista needs longer to boot and load applications, but it never took that much some of the people quoted in the article state.

nonetheless, imo, vista is the most crapiest os by ms. vista = xp + crap. vista - crap = xp. nothing more to say :p:

[mion]

I ran both vista and xp pro on a lappy. Startup and shut down were slower on vista than xp. I was suprised becasue I read somewhere that it suppose to be faster.

[Shintai]

Why even run XP or 2000? A Win95/98 can boot so fast now!!!!1111

[phelan1777]

I feellllll the neeeeeeed.........................THE NEEEEEEEED FOR SPEEEEEEEEED!

[triple_A]

Ehr i've been using vista side by side with XP on the same rig, and vista isn't that slow if you ask me..

certain apps seem to load faster, others slower.
there isn't that much of a difference really.

But i suppose there is plenty of room for improving vista, i mean, why the hell does it need that much ram??! it isn't because of aero glass because when i turn that off it uses like 20-30mb less..
i also disabled a number of useless services.. but still ..

[Lane-k]

lol.. never see Vista on the Laptop of my friend, make 6 min. for boot and 10 min for shut down... Only during the first boot after open the box..Cause ther laptop was updating the installation..
It's an Asus Laptop, low range.. (Sempron 3400+, 1Go of DDR).. is Computerworld not Apple based?..

Now i have use the Final RC1 ( beta), and can say it's not slowly for appliccation, boot is faster in Vista.. it's clear if you have 512Mo of DDR on a laptop, it's close of what is use without open any appliccation.. More Laptop are allways sold with a lot of security software preinstalled, and i m sure it give a big low perfomance when enter windows..

Now the only thing let me stay to XP, it's for the moment, bench are faster on XP.. specially there's no DX10 games yet.. i will certainly make a dual boot ultimate and XP, one for bench, other for play...

[Afterburner]

As far as my X-Fi is concerned.....Vista has far less Bass then in Xp :fact: :mad:

[WeaponX]

But i suppose there is plenty of room for improving vista, i mean, why the hell does it need that much ram??! it isn't because of aero glass because when i turn that off it uses like 20-30mb less..
i also disabled a number of useless services.. but still ..

It's not that it "needs" the ram, from what I've been reading, Vista simply utilizes all of the ram available so it doesn't matter what programs you've turned off, the amount being used will always be the same.

[DeathReborn]

Hahah what a bunch of :banana::banana::banana::banana: head at MS. " oh it's not slower, thats just you, your wrong, we are blatenly sticking up for our crappy OS", that costs an arm and a leg.

God knows what im gonna do when Crysis hits. I seriously don't want Vista, unless it's improved a heck of a lot by then.

Well the good news is that when Longhorn ships they are going to update the Kernel with te same as in Longhorn so that should fix some bugs.

Vista isn't as bad as you think, it's just having a few teething problems where old methods have been removed & replaced by inferior X360 ports.

[Lestat]

old methods have been removed & replaced by inferior X360 ports

im sorry what? X360 has absolutely nothing to do with Vista
and incase you havent seen a 360 lately, it does use a heavily modified and more powerful X1900 gpu,,, and frankly i have yet to see a non sli or non X-Fire system do what the 360 has repeatedly done. so 'inferior' 360 ports,,, i think not.

[freeloader]

Funny...I dual boot Vista on a partitioned drive and it loads much faster than XP. Shutdown on the other hand is extremely slow. I swear I can go get a coffee and come back and it still wouldn't have shutdown.

[virtualrain]

I don't notice any appreciable difference in performance after switching to Vista but OMFG XP looks like a joke in comparison. I can't stand XP now. Vista spoils you quickly.

[redrumy3]

hmm i boot just as fast as xp but i shutdown alot faster than xp, but than again my vista is vlite and can fit on a cd since its only 640mb

[NickS]

Funny...I dual boot Vista on a partitioned drive and it loads much faster than XP. Shutdown on the other hand is extremely slow. I swear I can go get a coffee and come back and it still wouldn't have shutdown.

I agree, boot is very fast. Shutdown is slow though, but who "waits" for the PC to shut down? You usually walk away lmao.

Standby & Hibernation are MUCH faster in Vista now though, than XP. I tend to just Hibernate my rig 1/2 the time.

Overall I love Vista, theres too much negativity about it. (Then again, there was negativity during the time when XP first came out, when people were saying THAT was slow.. etc etc.)

[Kobalt]

I agree, boot is very fast. Shutdown is slow though, but who "waits" for the PC to shut down? You usually walk away lmao.



If you want to reboot (like if you're installing something that requires a reboot).

[Reznik Akime]

(Then again, there was negativity during the time when XP first came out, when people were saying THAT was slow.. etc etc.)

Exactly. But it seems people on the internet are either too young to remember or have a memory span of an amoeba. Thus, its "lolz m$ sux0rs" and all that other drivel. Whats worse is that 80% of the people say this and only 20% have actually tried it, much less have an understanding on how it works.

That and not to mention the fact that.. Oh, I dunno.. Its NEW?! Wow, who would have thought. I guess all other new technology don't have flaws. Only Vista. :rolleyes:

[deathman20]

Startup is defiantly quicker for me. Since I can have a fully functional desktop in 45 seconds. Not sure if thats from bios boot or from when it passes all the boot information. Either way its faster then my 90 sec boot time from XP that I've had in the past.

Shut down ya seems to take longer, but Im not sure what its doing. Might be writing log files to the system restore feature. I know that stores a huge amount of information on the HDD so its possible its writing some of that information before it shuts down.

[XSAlliN]

Good bonus, all my life I wanted an OS that starts/shutdowns in 40 sec, oh wait, I already have one, the old XP (with small tweaks). :D

[Clint]

hmm i boot just as fast as xp but i shutdown alot faster than xp, but than again my vista is vlite and can fit on a cd since its only 640mb

Allow me:
Your install is NOT vlite, the installsource is modified with that crap vlite...you install is simply a crippled Vista, nothing else....and I really can't see what the size of the CD got to do with anything discussed here.

[redrumy3]

Allow me:
Your install is NOT vlite, the installsource is modified with that crap vlite...you install is simply a crippled Vista, nothing else....and I really can't see what the size of the CD got to do with anything discussed here.

:nono: my original vista is 2.5 gb i was just saying that after vlite it was 640mb, and with vlite vista speed was 10 time faster than non vlite version.. thats why i boot fast and shutdown fast so dont make like you know something..

now do you use vista if so i would love to see your performance tab..

but im sure my vlite version has nothing to do with my vista speed :rolleyes:

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/9681/untitledgq1.png

[LuckyNV]

I think EA pretty much lit fireworks all over the "Vista needs more resources" by putting higher recommended specs for Vista compared to XP on the back of the CNC3 boxes :D

[triple_A]

:nono: my original vista is 2.5 gb i was just saying that after vlite it was 640mb, and with vlite vista speed was 10 time faster than non vlite version.. thats why i boot fast and shutdown fast so dont make like you know something..

now do you use vista if so i would love to see your performance tab..

but im sure my vlite version has nothing to do with my vista speed :rolleyes:

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/9681/untitledgq1.png

Whats your boottime and the specs of your rig?

I'm kinda interested in this stuff :)

[irev210]

I really think that a lot of lag comes from the constant windows vista indexing and what not.


I tend to agree, bootup and shutdown definitely are slower. However, once windows vista is finally up, booted, and running, for me it is more response than XP.

[TReese]

Vista works great for me...I startup faster than XP but shutdown seems slightly slower. I guess it all just depends on the system you are running. If you haven't tried it don't complain about it imo

[redrumy3]

Whats your boottime and the specs of your rig?

I'm kinda interested in this stuff :)
um i will reboot for you and let you know now i go through a raid screen to but its still fast boot shut down is instant as soon as i hit shudown it goes to vista screen and shutdowns in about 4 secs

Specs
E4300 3.2ghz
8800GTS 640
2GB Buffalo Firestix D9 4-4-4-8
Gigabyte DS3
2x320gb seagate perps in raid 0

i also been using diskeeper lately and i like the pagefile feature it has good program deff help boot up speed imo

it takes 42 secs for me to boot from bios screen into vista could be a bit less but diskeeper has its own screen when booting as well, shut down speeds are almost instant from clicking about 6 secs the most.

now i just put a order in through microsoft for 64 bit version of vista, im going to compare them both and see which performs better after vlite, should come to me in about 5 days and i will report back if you like.

[stardust8750]

"But we have seen, based on both internal and external measurement and testing, that most Windows Vista users experience very quick responses when using sleep, shutdown or restart."


:ROTF: Do they read this stuff back to someone before ok'ing it? :lol2:

[NickS]

I really think that a lot of lag comes from the constant windows vista indexing and what not.


I tend to agree, bootup and shutdown definitely are slower. However, once windows vista is finally up, booted, and running, for me it is more response than XP.

Indexing and automatic (background) Disk Defragmenter scans are scheduled by default in vista. This is why on a clean install, you walk away and come back to a chattering HDD when the PC is doing nothing.

While the Defragmenting is useful, I usually disable the automatic schedule and do it when I want it done (sometime every Friday when i'm not gaming).

As for indexing, you should disable that on XP too!

[RaZz!]

[...]While the Defragmenting is useful, [...]

it may be useful, but it's a pain in the ass for the hard drive if vista is constantly defragmenting.

[redrumy3]

it may be useful, but it's a pain in the ass for the hard drive if vista is constantly defragmenting.
why i used vlite to take out vista defrag system, pos imo

[Thorry]

OMG I can't believe the DUMBASS posts in this topic... it must be an all-time low...

Most people agree Vista is one of the best OSses EVER to hit the market, it was well worth the wait. People saying otherwise either screwed up their install or didn't even try it in the first place.

Boot up times are very fast, but don't go installing it and the first time you boot it time it... Then it's damned slow. Vista in continuously optimizing your installation to improve boot times and program launch times.

Shutdown is a bit slower, but who cares? Just press the shutdown button, turn off the monitor and walk away... Reboot? There is no reason to, everything can be done without reboots (even though some install programs mostly designed for XP still ask you to reboot, but it is rarely actually needed).

Also: Once you've installed everything it is never again needed to reboot. The same with UAC, whilst installing it's a pain in the ass, but after that you hardly know it's there.

And the indexing: That's one of the things that are still annoying but have been improved a lot. The first couple of days it's busy indexing everything, but after that it's fine. I use the start menu to search for applications and documents and it really improved my experience (as with XP I always switched back to the old menu because that was more usefull).

The first post in this thread is wrong to begin with. The number of people complaining is directly related to the number of people using it. A LOT of people are using Vista nowadays, so a LOT of people are complaining. But with a bit of tweaking you can get Vista to run FASTER as XP (due to a lot of things which first had to be done 100% software now make use of hardware capabilities).

Please: Stop the Vista crapping posts unless you have some serious problem which you can explain and has a good technical reason and also directy related to Vista. So not: My videocard is so slow because nVidia screwed up the drivers. That is nVidia related and not Vista related.

[triple_A]

OMG I can't believe the DUMBASS posts in this topic... it must be an all-time low...

Most people agree Vista is one of the best OSses EVER to hit the market, it was well worth the wait. People saying otherwise either screwed up their install or didn't even try it in the first place.

Boot up times are very fast, but don't go installing it and the first time you boot it time it... Then it's damned slow. Vista in continuously optimizing your installation to improve boot times and program launch times.

Shutdown is a bit slower, but who cares? Just press the shutdown button, turn off the monitor and walk away... Reboot? There is no reason to, everything can be done without reboots (even though some install programs mostly designed for XP still ask you to reboot, but it is rarely actually needed).

Also: Once you've installed everything it is never again needed to reboot. The same with UAC, whilst installing it's a pain in the ass, but after that you hardly know it's there.

And the indexing: That's one of the things that are still annoying but have been improved a lot. The first couple of days it's busy indexing everything, but after that it's fine. I use the start menu to search for applications and documents and it really improved my experience (as with XP I always switched back to the old menu because that was more usefull).

The first post in this thread is wrong to begin with. The number of people complaining is directly related to the number of people using it. A LOT of people are using Vista nowadays, so a LOT of people are complaining. But with a bit of tweaking you can get Vista to run FASTER as XP (due to a lot of things which first had to be done 100% software now make use of hardware capabilities).

Please: Stop the Vista crapping posts unless you have some serious problem which you can explain and has a good technical reason and also directy related to Vista. So not: My videocard is so slow because nVidia screwed up the drivers. That is nVidia related and not Vista related.

agree 100%
but the fact still is that in games etc. vista is still a bit slower than XP.
however, this could indeed be because of bad drivers or so..

time wil tell!

[Orangeman]

I don't know if this will impact anyone's speed, but I noticed on a clean install that power management had set my hard drives to power down after 20 minutes. I only noticed this when troubleshooting some streaming problems to my Pioneer Elite plasma using Media Player. While the system drive would never go to sleep, the data drive kept powering down on me.

[Reznik Akime]

agree 100%
but the fact still is that in games etc. vista is still a bit slower than XP.
however, this could indeed be because of bad drivers or so..

time wil tell!

Mostly immature drivers. And I don't see where this slow shutdown stuff is comming from. After reading this thread earlier I had to shutdown my computer and it took all of 10-15 seconds.

And its not quite the indexing that causes all the thrashing either. Its superfetch precaching.

[NickS]

The data drive will power down when not in use, this happens in my 2nd rig in XP too.. actually a few minutes ago I heard it.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and ReadyBoost PWNS!

[nn_step]

:nono: my original vista is 2.5 gb i was just saying that after vlite it was 640mb, and with vlite vista speed was 10 time faster than non vlite version.. thats why i boot fast and shutdown fast so dont make like you know something..

now do you use vista if so i would love to see your performance tab..

but im sure my vlite version has nothing to do with my vista speed :rolleyes:



Actually Clint is correct.

[Reznik Akime]

The data drive will power down when not in use, this happens in my 2nd rig in XP too.. actually a few minutes ago I heard it.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and ReadyBoost PWNS!

Was it Readyboost or superfetch? If im not mistaken, Readyboost uses a flash drive and superfetch uses the ram? Either way, both are very nice features. Makes things VERY snappy.

[Eastcoasthandle]

bad drivers
lawsuit concerning vista's hardware requirement
vista's performance
game performance (the ones that actually do work)

The list keeps growing and growing. But vista is the best OS of all time. :rolleyes:

[DeathReborn]

im sorry what? X360 has absolutely nothing to do with Vista
and incase you havent seen a 360 lately, it does use a heavily modified and more powerful X1900 gpu,,, and frankly i have yet to see a non sli or non X-Fire system do what the 360 has repeatedly done. so 'inferior' 360 ports,,, i think not.

DirectInput replaced with XLInput (introduced with the X360)
DirectSound replaced with XACT (modified from X360 to support Windows)

[Cuthalu]

Vista's performance is somewhat sluggish after a while after install, and it want's to do something with hdd's all the time - the worst part is that I have a fast cpu and ram. I had to disable indexing, superfetch etc. to make it stop. However, it still has a lot of processes running and consuming ram.

[Plywood99]

um i will reboot for you and let you know now i go through a raid screen to but its still fast boot shut down is instant as soon as i hit shudown it goes to vista screen and shutdowns in about 4 secs

Specs
E4300 3.2ghz
8800GTS 640
2GB Buffalo Firestix D9 4-4-4-8
Gigabyte DS3
2x320gb seagate perps in raid 0

i also been using diskeeper lately and i like the pagefile feature it has good program deff help boot up speed imo

it takes 42 secs for me to boot from bios screen into vista could be a bit less but diskeeper has its own screen when booting as well, shut down speeds are almost instant from clicking about 6 secs the most.

now i just put a order in through microsoft for 64 bit version of vista, im going to compare them both and see which performs better after vlite, should come to me in about 5 days and i will report back if you like.

Would like to know your Vlite config Red. Not that Vista is giving me problems but every little bit helps. 22 processes looks mighty enticing...


Ply

[Plywood99]

OMG I can't believe the DUMBASS posts in this topic... it must be an all-time low...

Most people agree Vista is one of the best OSses EVER to hit the market, it was well worth the wait. People saying otherwise either screwed up their install or didn't even try it in the first place.

Boot up times are very fast, but don't go installing it and the first time you boot it time it... Then it's damned slow. Vista in continuously optimizing your installation to improve boot times and program launch times.

Shutdown is a bit slower, but who cares? Just press the shutdown button, turn off the monitor and walk away... Reboot? There is no reason to, everything can be done without reboots (even though some install programs mostly designed for XP still ask you to reboot, but it is rarely actually needed).

Also: Once you've installed everything it is never again needed to reboot. The same with UAC, whilst installing it's a pain in the ass, but after that you hardly know it's there.

And the indexing: That's one of the things that are still annoying but have been improved a lot. The first couple of days it's busy indexing everything, but after that it's fine. I use the start menu to search for applications and documents and it really improved my experience (as with XP I always switched back to the old menu because that was more usefull).

The first post in this thread is wrong to begin with. The number of people complaining is directly related to the number of people using it. A LOT of people are using Vista nowadays, so a LOT of people are complaining. But with a bit of tweaking you can get Vista to run FASTER as XP (due to a lot of things which first had to be done 100% software now make use of hardware capabilities).

Please: Stop the Vista crapping posts unless you have some serious problem which you can explain and has a good technical reason and also directy related to Vista. So not: My videocard is so slow because nVidia screwed up the drivers. That is nVidia related and not Vista related.


Lol! QFT...


Ply

[NickS]

bad drivers
lawsuit concerning vista's hardware requirement
vista's performance
game performance (the ones that actually do work)

The list keeps growing and growing. But vista is the best OS of all time. :rolleyes:

Application compatibility and driver performance is an issue for every new OS. Don't be an idiot.

FYI, all my Steam Games, BF2, BF2142, DRIV3R, GTR2, Test Drive Unlimited, Rainbow 6 Vegas, etc work on Vista Ultimate 32 Bit for me.

Heres my ~1.5mo 24/7 install of Vista Ultimate. I don't dual boot, it's my Main Rig's Primary and only OS. This is at bootup.


http://upload.nickfire.com//files/13/Untitled_thumb.jpg
(http://upload.nickfire.com//files/13/Untitled.jpg)

EDIT, Aero PWNS


http://upload.nickfire.com//files/13/Untitled2_thumb.jpg
(http://upload.nickfire.com//files/13/Untitled2.jpg)

Click these to view full size.

[bigdaddy25fb]

:nono: my original vista is 2.5 gb i was just saying that after vlite it was 640mb, and with vlite vista speed was 10 time faster than non vlite version.. thats why i boot fast and shutdown fast so dont make like you know something..

now do you use vista if so i would love to see your performance tab..

but im sure my vlite version has nothing to do with my vista speed :rolleyes:

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/9681/untitledgq1.png

Man if only you knew what clint knew. Why don't you do a search and see what him and NNstep are working on and have done? I'm pretty sure he knows a whole lot more than you do about Vista's ins and outs.:slapass: My vista experience has been quite nice thanks to a list Clint posted, so do have a good day.

[SunFlowerSeeds]

I love vista... great from multitasking and it is more stable as long as you can get the driver work...

[perkam]

Perkam got on the Vista Bandwagon this Monday (Home Premium) so I'm not going to go easy on anti-vista fanboy comments :crunchesfingers:

Perkam

[Plywood99]

Perkam got on the Vista Bandwagon this Monday (Home Premium) so I'm not going to go easy on anti-vista fanboy comments :crunchesfingers:

Perkam

Lol, seriously Perkam, what has been your experience? Mine has been quite refreshing. Much better than switching to xp back in the day...


Ply

[Daveb2012]

I have to admit even though I posted this article, I couldn't notice much difference when I dual booted on a c2d machine.. but I have worked with some laptops that were "vista capable" that were a joke. The dual Pentium m 512mb laptops running vista basic are so slow its hard to do any thing. especially if you don't remove all the non-sense from start up. I think the PC mfg are largely responsible for this. Toshiba is still selling these laptops that are practically not use-able, as one of there main economy models. Pre-loaded with all the junk with the system specs they have its just a joke.

[Plywood99]

I have to admit even though I posted this article, I couldn't notice much difference when I dual booted on a c2d machine.. but I have worked with some laptops that were "vista capable" that were a joke. The dual Pentium m 512mb laptops running vista basic are so slow its hard to do any thing. especially if you don't remove all the non-sense from start up. I think the PC mfg are largely responsible for this. Toshiba is still selling these laptops that are practically not use-able, as one of there main economy models. Pre-loaded with all the junk with the system specs they have its just a joke.

QFT. Just did a fresh install for a friend with a 512meg machine. Vista is not too bad under 512. But it does lag a decent amount when a few app are running.
However most retail comps come with so much bloat-ware pre-installed the machines can't help but be slow...


Ply

[redrumy3]

im not doubting clint im just saying from using vlite vista speed is alot, i know vlite has many flaws but i like using on vista to take out all extra stuff im never going to use.

sorry clint, without vlite my ram usuage was just sad to look at i mean coming from xp to vista and have over 60 processes is just :eek!: but after vlite vista actually isnt bad in speed wise compared to xp. dont want to start nothing sorry, i actually find it funny when clint posts on vlite forums

[Reznik Akime]

I have to admit even though I posted this article, I couldn't notice much difference when I dual booted on a c2d machine.. but I have worked with some laptops that were "vista capable" that were a joke. The dual Pentium m 512mb laptops running vista basic are so slow its hard to do any thing. especially if you don't remove all the non-sense from start up. I think the PC mfg are largely responsible for this. Toshiba is still selling these laptops that are practically not use-able, as one of there main economy models. Pre-loaded with all the junk with the system specs they have its just a joke.

Quite. I had to go through a friend's Dell since im the only one here with Vista experence and remove all the bloated crap and turn off the unnecessary services. It was surprisingly useable after that. It then didn't seem like having a mere 512mb a crappy experence. It was quite decent, actually.

[deathman20]

Oh did find out was ~45 sec for me full boot (14 seconds for Vista load screen) then 5 sec for the desktop and well add my clicking on my name and entering my password. Not bad IMO, definatly speedier then XP on bootup even if its taking 1.2Gig of ram which I couldn't give a crap about. I havent maxed my memory out yet so I see no reason why I should worry about memory usage. 64-bit FTW :)

BTW Installation much better then XP
Drivers, no a single issue here and thats including beta drivers for my sound card.
Games, a few old ones don't work but heck FreeSpace 2 works, come on thats a 1999 game with DX8 otherwise I haven't seen any preformance hit in games that I've been playing.

[Plywood99]

Oh did find out was ~45 sec for me full boot (14 seconds for Vista load screen) then 5 sec for the desktop and well add my clicking on my name and entering my password. Not bad IMO, definatly speedier then XP on bootup even if its taking 1.2Gig of ram which I couldn't give a crap about. I havent maxed my memory out yet so I see no reason why I should worry about memory usage. 64-bit FTW :)

BTW Installation much better then XP
Drivers, no a single issue here and thats including beta drivers for my sound card.
Games, a few old ones don't work but heck FreeSpace 2 works, come on thats a 1999 game with DX8 otherwise I haven't seen any preformance hit in games that I've been playing.

Yup, installation is a breeze. Thirty minutes tops and done...


Ply

[nn_step]

Yup, installation is a breeze. Thirty minutes tops and done...


Ply

in some regards yes, however there are ways to set up XP that it installs in under 10mins TOPS. Not to mention the laundry list of tricks that people have developed for it

[deathman20]

in some regards yes, however there are ways to set up XP that it installs in under 10mins TOPS. Not to mention the laundry list of tricks that people have developed for it

Well me the 30min to install Vista is well worth it compared to the 2-3 days of messing around trying to get a raid driver installed properly for XP install to read it.

Im sure im not the only one thats had the issue where it can't be slip-streamed, floppy drive is more or less a 1 in a 100 shot of it reading properly. I did it once, but I know i spent more time the second time trying to then I spent probably all the last 3 years for OS installs.

[Revv23]

I think one thing microsoft doesn't realize is that there is a huge market of people who would like a mode in thier windows for super high speed, low overhead running.

Maybe they could differentiate with two different products or perhaps they could introduce a performance mode with SP1... That would be especially helpful for the unfortunate souls that have to run vista on old hardware with low amouts of ram.

I dunno, i feel like MS doesn't realize that not everyone wants more features and functionality, some just want more speed and less hassle; barebones if you will.

[nn_step]

I think one thing microsoft doesn't realize is that there is a huge market of people who would like a mode in thier windows for super high speed, low overhead running.

Maybe they could differentiate with two different products or perhaps they could introduce a performance mode with SP1... That would be especially helpful for the unfortunate souls that have to run vista on old hardware with low amouts of ram.

I dunno, i feel like MS doesn't realize that not everyone wants more features and functionality, some just want more speed and less hassle; barebones if you will.
why not return to the command line like windows 3.1? :rolleyes:
No need for the pesky GUI, just straight clean command line

[deathman20]

why not return to the command line like windows 3.1? :rolleyes:
No need for the pesky GUI, just straight clean command line

That just takes the fun out of it though :)

Do agree that there should be some way to set what you want installed. All that misc BS programs and that while I don't want installed, I might use it sometime. I mean all the speach, language, drivers, etc tahts installed with Vista Ultimate 64-bit is a good 4gigs worth of stuff I won't use, heck 700megs of it is printer drivers and even my printer is not included in all the drivers.

[nn_step]

That just takes the fun out of it though :)

Do agree that there should be some way to set what you want installed. All that misc BS programs and that while I don't want installed, I might use it sometime. I mean all the speach, language, drivers, etc tahts installed with Vista Ultimate 64-bit is a good 4gigs worth of stuff I won't use, heck 700megs of it is printer drivers and even my printer is not included in all the drivers.

well that is one thing about linux that you can customize.
You choose if you want a GUI and what type, you get to select what Drivers you keep on your hard drive and which ones you have on the install CD .
I completely support the idea of loading a :banana::banana::banana::banana:load of working drivers onto the install CD but give the option of if you are going to just install minimal drivers or to load the whole driver set, just incase you plug something new into the system.

[deathman20]

well that is one thing about linux that you can customize.
You choose if you want a GUI and what type, you get to select what Drivers you keep on your hard drive and which ones you have on the install CD .
I completely support the idea of loading a :banana::banana::banana::banana:load of working drivers onto the install CD but give the option of if you are going to just install minimal drivers or to load the whole driver set, just incase you plug something new into the system.

I don't mind the drivers but at least give us an option of installing them all or selecting which drivers you'd like installed for us enthusiats like you said. All the drivers where great what it comes with. I mean my raid worked right away I was amazed no drivers, now thats a first.

Don't get me started on Linux, the bootable CD one is the only one I've tried and worked for me. The rest was omre or less a hassel for me and to even get working thats another story well just say, it well doesn't turn out well for the disk I burned it on.

[Kobalt]

why not return to the command line like windows 3.1? :rolleyes:
No need for the pesky GUI, just straight clean command line

Because its easier to double click on something rather than typing "open xxxx.exe"

[nn_step]

I don't mind the drivers but at least give us an option of installing them all or selecting which drivers you'd like installed for us enthusiats like you said. All the drivers where great what it comes with. I mean my raid worked right away I was amazed no drivers, now thats a first.

Don't get me started on Linux, the bootable CD one is the only one I've tried and worked for me. The rest was omre or less a hassel for me and to even get working thats another story well just say, it well doesn't turn out well for the disk I burned it on.
what distro did you play around with?

Because its easier to double click on something rather than typing "open xxxx.exe"
ummm you never used a command line, did you?
How about using Batch to set the Operating system up instantly after install

[serialk11r]

XP install in 10 minutes? Hmmm... I took 15-20.
Sorry bout the off topic ;p

[Vapor]

I've been on the Vista bandwagon ever since I first tried the RC1 version MS was sending out for ~$5.

I'm at the point where I can't think of a good reason to run XP on a daily system other than sheer laziness to upgrade (OS installations and BIOS flashes are my least favorite CPU-related activities). Limited funds situations excluded.

For benching I'll still stick to 2k3/XP, but that's about it.

[Kobalt]

ummm you never used a command line, did you?
How about using Batch to set the Operating system up instantly after install

Lol nope...too young

I assumed it was kinda like DOS but I guess not?

[phelan1777]

what distro did you play around with?

ummm you never used a command line, did you?
How about using Batch to set the Operating system up instantly after install

/\ he said Batch.................hehehehe.

I was playing with DOS when I was 8................

[nn_step]

Lol nope...too young

I assumed it was kinda like DOS but I guess not?
play around with freebsd, you'll be amazed by how easy it is to do things.
Single command can download and install any application in the ports collection.


/\ he said Batch.................hehehehe.

I was playing with DOS when I was 8................

well DOS has its uses

[NickS]

For benching I'll still stick to 2k3/XP, but that's about it.


+1.. I have some POS maxtor 8GB w/XP SP-2 tweaked and all bench proggies on it already dedicated for benching :)

[Thorry]

@nn:

Hows about we stop the extremely offtopic posts?

"Hey look it's a thread about Vista, quickly post some Linux spam"

Also: Calling FreeBSD a Linux distro is a deadly sin, I know people who would punch you in the face for saying something like that.

BSD is NOT in ANY way Linux...

And you can post all you want, the GUI was designed to help people operate a computer and it has become damned popular so it must be doing something right now doesn't it?

Or would you still like punchcards for you computer? So easy, if you want to run an application just enter the correct card...

[deathman20]

what distro did you play around with?

Truthfully I don't remember all of them that I've tried. RedHat was one of them but there are others as well. Oh Sesu or something along that line. I tried 4 in all over a course of a month.

Don't mind trying again will be on my secondary computer that hasn't been plugged in nearly 2 years to give it a whirl. I know I tried it on a lower end system, this box which is a Abit board forgot which with a Celeron 533A, and at the time a P4 system as well as my AMD system I had a year ago.

I played with this last year for sure and before that I don't remember.

[nn_step]

@nn:

Hows about we stop the extremely offtopic posts?

"Hey look it's a thread about Vista, quickly post some Linux spam"

Also: Calling FreeBSD a Linux distro is a deadly sin, I know people who would punch you in the face for saying something like that.

BSD is NOT in ANY way Linux...

And you can post all you want, the GUI was designed to help people operate a computer and it has become damned popular so it must be doing something right now doesn't it?

Or would you still like punchcards for you computer? So easy, if you want to run an application just enter the correct card...

Dude, I said BSD is a Unix OS
actually I prefer the ablity to choose every detail of the OS, rather than be handed a GUI and not have the option of stripping it out for one of my Servers.

Truthfully I don't remember all of them that I've tried. RedHat was one of them but there are others as well. Oh Sesu or something along that line. I tried 4 in all over a course of a month.

Don't mind trying again will be on my secondary computer that hasn't been plugged in nearly 2 years to give it a whirl. I know I tried it on a lower end system, this box which is a Abit board forgot which with a Celeron 533A, and at the time a P4 system as well as my AMD system I had a year ago.

I played with this last year for sure and before that I don't remember.
try Kubuntu

[deathman20]

try Kubuntu

I'll give it a try next time I get some time and dig out the old system.


BTW I did a test just taking the stop watch from my Cell Phone.

Boot time from when I hit the button, with my rig at 3Ghz...
43.21 seconds including typing in password to fully loaded desktop where I can actually select icons and open them instantly

Shut down time from when I hit the button...
37.58 seconds, better then I thought but it takes along time for it to really shut down compared to the actual boot time for when Vista starts loading actually.

[stevecs]

I think one thing microsoft doesn't realize is that there is a huge market of people who would like a mode in thier windows for super high speed, low overhead running.

Maybe they could differentiate with two different products or perhaps they could introduce a performance mode with SP1... That would be especially helpful for the unfortunate souls that have to run vista on old hardware with low amouts of ram.

I dunno, i feel like MS doesn't realize that not everyone wants more features and functionality, some just want more speed and less hassle; barebones if you will.


Completely agree, all the crap in 'vista' is just eye candy and completely useless. Just like in XP when i install that I spend a good hour or so turning everything off to get the OS down the base and pretty much make it look like 2000. Vista from doing some limited playing with it is just bloatware in my opinion. I think microsoft just forgot that it was trying to sell an OPERATING SYSTEM, it's not a friggen application. The system should be an unobtrusive as possible to let applications run not the other way around, duh!

[Wrench]

Vista is a mix bag. Its unstable compared to xp64. Performance in most apps seems the same with the exclusion of GLApps, which are abysmal. I had more BSODS in vista then xp64 and they were all Kernel crashes not any drivers. One thing I do like about the OS is its multimedia handling capabilities. Dual monitor setups works much better and acceleration on two screens seems to be smooth compared to xp 64 so I can now play games and watch tv shows on the other screen. I had multiple crashes and loss of data so winxp64 is better as far as work but for pissing around and having fun vista is great.