Quote :

"I mean for fucks sake, they didn't even include the new file system, which was THE reason for Longhorn in the first place. Anybody remember that? I don't know who else got to beta WinFS, but damn it was good for a beta filesystem. AND IT GOT CUT."

that was the only reason i had any interest in a new operating system

8/1/2007 11:33:52 AM

Quote :

"Yes, they will, with a simple patch. The games "you play" are all ARTIFICIALLY limited to XP. They play FASTER when patched on XP. DirectX 10 is a flop. The only visual improvement is in shadows. And the performance hit is so great, not even the mighty 8800 can implement them. You can play faster at the same settings with DX9 in XP."

How many DX10 games have you played? DX9 was about the same in regard to driver issues just like DX10 is now.

haha you think the ONLY thing DX10 has is shadows. You read that in some review somewhere? Read some of the newer reviews on DX10 games. There's plenty more than Shadows. The depth of field is amazing in call of juarez. It makes older games look flat.

How many DX10 games have you run? Can you actually make a comparison?

Quote :

"It's not, plain and simple. I've used both, on multiple systems, in a lab environment. "

I've run both windows media center edition, and vista media center and tv is MUCH faster on vista. Again, you're welcome to come see that for youself. So you tested it with an HD tuner?

Yes i'm fully aware CS3 is not just photoshop. I use photoshop, illustrator, and bridge. As well as Macromedia dreamweaver. Plus microsoft office 07.

Still you're missing the point. Vista works better for me than xp. You can't argue that, because it's my opinion and from my experience. This is pretty obvious because i NEVER boot up XP.

What do you think i just FORCED myself to only run vista? Trust me i'm not going to run something less it's faster and more efficient. Haven't booted up XP, so i think it's kinda obvious. Atleast in my case.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 11:38 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 11:34:57 AM

Quote :

"For me, it looks like M$ felt compelled that they HAD to change everything around. Let's re-organize the control panel, you know, make shit harder to find. "

This is the one thing I have to side with Microsoft on.

The ONE good thing they did with Vista was to implement a REAL style guide. Everything is finally detailed in terms of interface design, usage guidelines, conformity and organization. I love Microsoft's UI reference guide. It's better than Apple's, hands down. If they fix the fucking retard UI problems (security/hidden features), they would have a real fight on their hands with true usability against OSX.

8/1/2007 11:35:13 AM

Quote :

"I've run both windows media center edition, and vista media center and tv is MUCH faster on vista. Again, you're welcome to come see that for youself. So you tested it with an HD tuner? "

We used both analog and digital tuners. No HD. We also weren't running it on 3000 dollar gaming rigs. Instead we used OEM certified machines. Vista has an enormously higher hardware curve, and the number of people who can justify spending 300 dollars for an OS upgrade AND another 500 on a video card AND another 100 on memory is very very slim.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=870020

This pretty much sums up the results I saw too:

Quote :

"I have both, more recently, I've been playing with Vista Media Center on a 2nd computer. My bread and butter main computer that sits in the kitchen which has 4 HD tuners and an analog tuner is running on MCE2005. At this point, I like MCE2005 better. Both hardware is pretty much the same. PIV 3g with 1.5g to 2gigs of ram, with Nvidia 6600GTS and 7600GS. In general I can verify that Vista seems to be a hardware hog... too many things going on in the background that make it tedious or slow. I'm still familiarizing myself with Vista so that I can disable the unecessary services... "

8/1/2007 11:38:49 AM

Quote :

"Nvidia 6600GTS and 7600GS. "

I would imagine running 4 tv tuners would be slower with those cards. So you haven't tried HD DVR yet? It's faster on Vista, you're welcome to check it out if you want.

Let me reiterate something:

Quote :

"Still you're missing the point. Vista works better for me than xp. You can't argue that, because it's my opinion and from my experience. This is pretty obvious because i NEVER boot up XP. What do you think i just FORCED myself to only run vista? Trust me i'm not going to run something unless it's faster and more efficient. Haven't booted up XP, so i think it's kinda obvious. Atleast in my case. "

I like it better, it runs better in my opinion, and it's what i choose to run. If you have a different experience than by all means stick with xp, but you can't argue with my opinion and what i enjoy.

I'm not that stupid to run a slower OS JUST because i want to shout BS on tww. I have both xp and Vista on my pc, and i never boot up XP. It's simple.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 11:50 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 11:42:09 AM

Quote :

"i find it hard to understand why people get on my back for running vista"

I don't think you'll find a single person that is on your back about running any OS. I don't see why anyone would care. I think the reason you are getting so much flak is that you come across and the poster child for Bill Gates. You seem like you have a personal attachment for the OS and it's almost feels like you get a commission for every person on TWW that you can convert to Vista.

We get that you have been using the OS with no major issues. Believe me, we get it. Now I'd say most people just really don't want to hear about it any more.

Bottom Line: you're running at at 10 right now, and I need you to be at a 2. kthx.

8/1/2007 12:51:12 PM

you are trying to pass off your opinion as broad statements of fact.

it's not faster, it's not better. you are obviously the anomaly here.

Quote :

"I would imagine running 4 tv tuners would be slower with those cards. So you haven't tried HD DVR yet? It's faster on Vista, you're welcome to check it out if you want. Let me reiterate something:"

The fact that you define the "speed" of an operating system by how fast programs open and close makes me very weary of what you mean by "faster". How the hell can TELEVISION BE FASTER THAN REALTIME? What is this magical faster? Do you mean how fast media center OPENS? Or channel changing? Because that's a reflection of the card and it's drivers, not vista.

Seriously dude, you are the prototypical blackbox gamer. You don't have a clue what's going on underneath, you are making arbitrary judgements and generally have very little actual knowledge about what you are doing.

The reason people keep harping on you is because you drop your two cents into a hundred dollar conversation.

8/1/2007 12:52:02 PM

But the title of the thread is:

Quote :

"Vista is actually not a bad OS "

And i made ONE POST:

Quote :

"Been running vista ultimate 64 bit for months now and i love it. Only issue i had was a driver for my HDTV tuner. Had to do a quick registry edit to get vista media center to recognize both the analog and digital aspects of the tuner. Should be fixed in SP1 though."

Then you got on my back and made a joke. That was really the ONLY post i intended to make. Where am i in the wrong about that post? If you say i'm a poster child for microsoft, i'm also a poster child for various distros of linux, OS X, and any other OS/software i like. If i like something i'm going to talk about it.

Quote :

"Do you mean how fast media center OPENS? Or channel changing? Because that's a reflection of the card and it's drivers, not vista."

I mean the gui is faster, the codecs/decoders open the media faster, and scrolling through the guide is faster, and etc etc WITH THE SAME hardware.

Quote :

"Seriously dude, you are the prototypical blackbox gamer. You don't have a clue what's going on underneath, you are making arbitrary judgements and generally have very little actual knowledge about what you are doing. "

heh, if you wanna think that then ok. I think i've brought a fair-share of stuff to threads. I know plenty for my age and background. This thread wasn't a hardcore tech thread about vista. Ask the creator.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 12:57 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 12:54:06 PM

^^This was the same guy who determined the health of his system solely by the number of running processes in task manager.

You'd be better off trying to teach biochemistry to drunknloaded

8/1/2007 12:56:37 PM

^

Quote :

"his system solely by the number of running processes in task manager. "

hmm bobbydigital, i NEVER ONCE said anything about the health of my system being based "SOLELY" on the number of processes in task manager. ALL i said is it's a clear indication that someone has an issue with i see 80+ processes running and recognize quite a few adware/spyware processes running. That's the ONLY claim i made. Also after poking around in the registry and services i notice a bunch of shit there that should't be there either.

You can't exactly make up stuff about what i said, and use it to your defense.

Quote :

"you are trying to pass off your opinion as broad statements of fact."

I never ONCE said this applies to anyone other than me. I thought TWW was about personal opinions sometimes. I was making an observation on my own. I didn't say it applied to everyone. And i never said what i stated was "fact".

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 1:01 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 12:58:54 PM

FWIW:

i run vista ultimate on my gaming rig, no issues to speak of except games are slower so i boot to XP to game, no driver issues to speak of. in terms of speed i can't really tell a difference between my XP install vs. my Vista install, both boot/shutdown and operating speeds are similar, XP may be a bit faster but just because it's not trying to do as much... honestly though i haven't done an in-depth comparison of my 2 installs.

my media center is on vista home premium and honestly i can't tell a speed difference on this install either. all things considered i may go back to MCE 2005 just because i like the interface better.

but i do acknowledge that in both cases i have fairly high-end hardware and new hardware, so overall i can't really speak for what it would be like for 50%+ of consumers... but no problems on my end.

i can say that before i upgraded, i had an nforce3 chipset and since nvidia decided not to support vista for the chipset i had MANY problems running vista beta 2-RC1 on it.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 1:06 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 1:03:38 PM

Quote :

"For me, it looks like M$ felt compelled that they HAD to change everything around. Let's re-organize the control panel, you know, make **** harder to find."

If I want to assign a static IP I find that it's easier to just pull the network cable out of the computer and wait for the network disconnected notice to show up in the task bar. I can get to the options I want much faster than navigating through the maze that the control panel has become.

8/1/2007 1:08:26 PM

Jesus... I turn my back for a few days, and this thread goes green glass and mushroom clouds... Chill out... it's always going to be a matter of preference.

8/6/2007 7:12:21 PM

VISTA SEARCH IS SO ELITE

I CAN LOOK AT A FOLDER'S FILES
SEARCH FOR A FILE I SEE
AND IT NOT SHOW UP

12 HOURS LATER IT MAY OR MAY NOT SHOW UP.


ELEET

8/6/2007 7:59:39 PM

AFAIK that's the same as google desktop search or any other indexing search utility

8/6/2007 10:26:18 PM

Vista looks alright, but I may boot my computer to Vista once a month. Mine is a dualboot, but I can't do half the shit on it that I can from XP. Much of this is due to Novell not currently supporting Vista, and their shitty Vista tech. demonstrator BARELY fucking works, so I can only see a couple of the servers from my computer. So fuck that, I have pretty much decided to wait for the next OS. As others have said, Vista = Pretty ME.

8/7/2007 7:46:22 AM

ok jesus.... w. t. f.

Tonight was my first time using Vista at all. A friend called me over to help set up her new Vista machine, namely to network it with 2 XP machines they already had in the house. The vista machines has a 320GB HDD, so they wanted to keep all their files on that one, and use the two older, smaller machines to store or sync only certain files. but the main problem they had was the networking.

anyway - 1st impression when I sat down and opened up Windows Explorer was that i was completely overwhelmed by all the "information" in the window (in quotes because a lot of it was useless information or fluff). I consider myself a Windows power-user in that all of my applications are pretty well customized to how I want them. Hardly any toolbar or window is left at its default state, and the first thing I do on a 2000/XP machine that I'll be using for more than 5 minutes is change all sorts of settings in Explorer and Firefox. Anyway.... the default Windows Explorer view was just way too overwhelming as far as information and options. Maybe I've been using OS X at home for too long. Now I think the default view in OS 10.4's Finder is way too sparse - too little information (that's why I use PathFinder, customized to how I like it), and from what I've seen of 10.5's Finder, I think Apple has finally struck a good balance between the right amount of information, interface elements, and functionality. Vista Explorer though, just goes way off the deep end for how many buttons, arrows and gadgets you have in your face.

Secondly, (and back to Apple) anyone who sits down at Vista and looks at the interface and says "ohh, well, MS just copied OS X. I mean, look at all the bubbles and round corners" really doesn't know what the Mac interface is all about. Adding round corners, transparent menus, shiny buttons and drop shadows does not make an interface more "Mac like". From the hour I spent with it, Vista is the most un-Mac Windows interface in recent memory, as far as what the interface actually does, not how it looks. Even to that point, they again went way over the top with flashy Aero graphics and UI wizardry. Now Apple adds a little bling here and there to their interfaces, but most of it is streamlined, minimalist, and functional. Not so with Vista.

Third, don't believe anyone you hear say they re-wrote the interface from scratch (if that's what anyone is saying, that is). It pained me to open up the Computer Properties, or maybe it was Display Properties, or Network Connection Settings or something, to see a nice Aero frame, but a tired old Windows 98-style, gray, boxy tabbed window inside.

And finally, the real reason I was over there. WTF is with the networking and file sharing? I'll be damned if I've never had more trouble getting two Windows machines to share files, both of them wired to the same router and visible in the router table. I finally gave up - i'm going to study up and give it another shot next week. 1) I simply could not get the Vista machine to see the XP machine on the Network, much less browse its shared folders, of which there were several. 2) finally, I got the XP machine to see the Vista machine on the network, but it would never make a connection to any of the shared folders.
I tried all the old networking tricks that I knew of for sharing between 2000 and XP, tried different Workgroup names, domains, and all permutations I could find of file and folder sharing permissions and settings. I found several blog postings with mini-tutorials showing the needlessly complex process of getting this to work. In the end, i didn't get it to work.

I'm not looking to turn this into a troubleshooting thread (unless anybody else has had and solved a similar problem), and I'm sure that many of you will be proud to say that your XP and Vista machines network with "no problem", but I'm just sharing my first Vista experience, which was not a good one.

8/10/2007 12:06:02 AM

When I got back from school for the summer I hooked up my desktop and booted vista up. Right when I powered it up I was able to see all the computers in the house on the lan and access all the files. Had no trouble getting music/photographs off my desktop to my laptop running xp either. The only thing I might have done was re-share my folders on the vista machine, because I think changing to a different network caused the folder sharing to default back. It had no trouble handling the different workgroups either (from my house, and apartment). Oh and the whole "UAC" thing was annoying, but that got turned off right away.

Sorry you had so much trouble with the networking. That can be a pain sometimes.

[Edited on August 10, 2007 at 12:24 AM. Reason : .]

8/10/2007 12:21:56 AM

To make network shares work properly, you have to either have the same account/password on each machine (and ensure the folder share permissions are set appropriately), or just make a "dummy" account specifically for network shares, and it's important to make sure that whatever account you use for networking DOES HAVE a password.

Of course, you also have to enable the network file sharing ability for both and make sure the network firewall isn't blocking the ability. But I'm assuming you did that.

It's important to note that I never had any problems between my XP laptop and Vista desktop and network shares. I even managed to get a roommate to connect to the Vista from a Win2000 box.

One thing I never could get working reliably (until after I manually typed in the machine's name) was to see other computers within my workgroup. Once I connected manually they would show up.

To connect manually, type out the machine's IP between slashes, like such: //192.168.1.100/ ... You should be prompted for a user/pass and then be shown the contents shared out. (This is fyi in case you didn't know, take no offense if you do)

8/10/2007 1:39:29 AM

yeah so I got a new laptop that came with vista, and I played with it for a while and it just seemed that vista was crap. didn't even have the new filesystem, which I would have liked to see in production form b/c I had longhorn as beta a while back and that was sweet.

personal preference was that I didn't like vista, so I formatted the drive, installed xp, and went webhunting for the xp drivers for my new laptop, as toshiba doesn't put out xp drivers for this laptop b/c they only offer this thing with vista. after a few hours of searching, I got my new laptop up and running and I have to say that i think its quicker than vista. at least that's the appearance to me.

general rule of thumb is to wait a few years before using a new windows os. let them fix all the broke shit they didn't fix before they rushed to put it on the shelves. happens with every os.

8/10/2007 6:39:18 AM

Personally I haven't had any issues with Vista. It may very well be slower than XP and I'm sure that is the case on a lot of systems but I just built a new rig so it seems to handle everything fine. There is a lot of fluff and 'ooh pretty' eye candy that is unnecessary and of course it's harder to find settings and things since they made it more 'user-friendly' But that was the same when I upgraded to XP, it will just take a little time to learn the new menu structures and setup.

The only thing that pissed me off was that Zone Alarm doesn't support 64-bit OS'.

Oh wow it looks like Comodo just yesterday released a Vista x64 beta firewall....that's good news because until someone irons out a good one I've been dealing with the Vista firewall and UAC.

[Edited on August 10, 2007 at 8:53 AM. Reason : ]

8/10/2007 8:49:21 AM

Vista would be good, except they didnt even stick to the RFCs for their DHCP implementation, and the box doesnt process dhcp offers made by some cisco devices. The ONLY difference in the offer packet of the cisco router and the dhcp server used in the test, was the actual mac address of the server (one being identified as a cisco MAC in the trace, and the other being a dell server mac)... All the options and things were exactly the same.

Retarded. MS says the issues are that the cisco device doesnt send an offer, but I have proof otherwise from extensive testing I did, but they will not respond to the issue.

8/11/2007 1:10:06 AM

some recent, umm.... glowing reviews from some relatively important people in the PC world

The outgoing editor of PC Magazine
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2171472,00.asp

Quote :

"'ve been a big proponent of the new OS over the past few months, even going so far as loading it onto most of my computers and spending hours tweaking and optimizing it. So why, nine months after launch, am I so frustrated? The litany of what doesn't work and what still frustrates me stretches on endlessly."

he seems to share the networking problems that I pointed out a few posts ago

Quote :

"'ve configured every PC on my home network to share drives and printers, yet owing to some undiscovered element, there's no guarantee that any of them will be visible at any given time."

Quote :

"I could go on and on about the lack of drivers, the bizarre wake-up rituals, the strange and nonreproducible system quirks, and more. But I won't bore you with the details. The upshot is that even after nine months, Vista just ain't cutting it. I definitely gave Microsoft too much of a free pass on this operating system: I expected it to get the kinks worked out more quickly. Boy, was I fooled! If Microsoft can't get Vista working, I might just do the unthinkable: I might move to Linux."

And Joel Spolsky, formerly of MS and one of the creators of VBA and an original Excel programmer, and now a world known software guru
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/08/18.html

Quote :

"I've been using Vista on my home laptop since it shipped, and can say with some conviction that nobody should be using it as their primary operating system -- it simply has no redeeming merits to overcome the compatibility headaches it causes. Whenever anyone asks, my advice is to stay with Windows XP (and to purchase new systems with XP preinstalled)."

8/20/2007 1:43:33 PM

I've been using vista as my recreational os for a few days now and report no major issues with it. Nothing in any windows platform would compel me to switch from Linux as a production os but you'd have to be nuts to prefer so
xp for dicking around

8/20/2007 9:49:40 PM

someone got agentlion all worked up...

8/20/2007 11:47:04 PM

went back to XP after 4 months of Vista... XP is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better omfg.

8/21/2007 2:28:46 PM

i ordered a new laptop for work with vista on it to test our shit

but all the rest we've been buying non-stop here lately have been XP and will continue to be

8/21/2007 3:03:32 PM

fortunately, we don't have to deal with any of the compatibility issues at my office. Because the first thing our IT department does when they get a brand new computer with either XP or Vista preinstalled is to reformat and install Windows 2000. So..... you know.... no driver issues for us! oh yeah, except that 2000 is so fucking old by now most of the drivers are out of date

8/21/2007 5:48:07 PM

Thank you, Vista, for helping increase Apple's market share.

8/21/2007 5:50:04 PM

i like the ability to re-partition drives on the fly

9/11/2007 11:32:12 PM

*drives not in use.

9/11/2007 11:52:49 PM

no... sectors of drives not in use

i just made my 200gig (which has my o.s. on it) into 2 100s and then decided against it and made it back into 1 200 gig in the time of about 15 min. (but yes i did have to move al the info from the 2nd partition back to the o.s. partition and then delete the 2nd partition and expand the o.s. drive)

anyone know how to make my computer show up on the desktop other than making a ghetto-fab shortcut ? i think it was in start bar options on xp but i have no idea where this one is.

ohh and i also love that the os has the control +,- feature that browsers have had forever.



[Edited on September 12, 2007 at 7:19 AM. Reason : .]

9/12/2007 7:04:52 AM

^Right click on desktop :: Personalize ... at the top of the vertical "Task" bar on the left is "Change desktop icons".

9/12/2007 8:45:02 AM

after 3 months, reformatted with XP Pro SP2...i just feel that, for my money, my 2gb of RAM and 3ghz processor could be doing more in XP than they do in Vista

*shrug*

9/12/2007 9:56:15 AM

i have yet to even phase my new laptop

gimmie some processor intensive ideas to play with

core 2 duo t7500 w/ 2 gigs

now the start bar has been glitchy for me but thats about my only beef and hopefully it will be fixed with sp1

9/12/2007 11:46:49 AM

hax

9/12/2007 12:37:53 PM

^^ message_topic.aspx?topic=118820 = processor intensive

9/12/2007 1:01:24 PM

good call!

p.s. thanks gs7

9/12/2007 1:20:47 PM

vista is a nice improvement, i really like the new explorer set up and start menu.


dx10 is the jam, anyone (i do mean anyone) who thinks dx10 is worthless is flat out dumb.

you may think dx10 isnt great, that the features it adds are worthless compared to the performance drop, but if thats what you feel then you have obv overlooked the fact that no major title (minus CoJ) has released that fully utilizes dx10, and coj doesnt even do it to its fullest extent.

think about when consoles first drop, compare games that come out for the ps2 recently vs those that come out on release day...is the ps2 shitty because the games on release day looked bad? Nope, because programmers find ways to use the tools better, resulting in better looking games later down the line...

whether you hate m$ or not, they are a giagantic corp with almost endless funds to pay programmers and designers to give them the best, or at least compete with the best, so to say they released a new version of dx that isnt as good as their own older vesion is pretty smart dumb

9/13/2007 10:17:11 AM

dx10 is like the ps3 just cause not many games use it well (yet) doesn't mean it sucks

9/13/2007 12:13:37 PM

and it's overpriced and crashes all the time.

great comparison!

9/13/2007 2:33:41 PM

Vista crashes depending on your hardware.

What's Sony's excuse?

9/13/2007 3:51:22 PM

bttt...just curious if vista business is worth downloading...apparently i'm now allowed to do some "MSDN" thing and i can get an iso of xp and i get 2 choices for vista but they are both business

10/18/2007 11:25:32 PM