friend back in atlanta calls me, got a new computer today. came with vista on it. took it out, hooked it up and literally within 30 min of running, while running updates blue screened

hilarious

6/19/2007 8:22:55 PM

lols

6/19/2007 8:25:44 PM

this is great chit chat material

6/19/2007 8:28:03 PM

yea even after 2000+ posts i'm still tryin to figure out which goes where sometimes. it's tech related, so i figured it would be fine here. besides it can spark all kinds of talk about vista

6/19/2007 8:36:29 PM

I have vista on my new laptop and it works like a charm

6/19/2007 8:37:25 PM

what really sparked talks about Vista were the other 100000 threads on vista

since i've been running Vista 32-bit Ultimate i've never once blue screened or crashed. Been running it since a week after release day.

however, running 64 bit used to blue screen all the time while running 3d Apps.

[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 8:38 PM. Reason : fda]

6/19/2007 8:38:14 PM

I've been running Vista Business for about 2 months now and it's been perfectly stable. The only time I've had it crash was using the Comodo firewall alpha.

6/19/2007 8:55:24 PM

vista made me switch to leenooks. if only leenooks could promise me the goodness of assasin's creed and crysis though

6/19/2007 9:18:15 PM

vista sucks at handling large amounts of files... explorer crashes...

also when doing work over the network i've gotten explorer.exe to take up 1.6gb of memory... LAME

6/19/2007 9:26:56 PM

i've been running vista home basic for the past week...i've been relatively happy since i figured out a few things:

- how to disable the damnable user account notifications or whatever they are
- how to (for the most part) set all my folders not to be retarded
- how to disable dwm.exe (i think?)...it's a HUGE resource hog...that's the aero engine, right? why does HOME BASIC have that crap anyway? i disabled it and noticed very little difference in appearance but a massive difference in response times

things that still bother me (maybe they're different/better in the nicer versions):

- some folders STILL do the most annoying thing (picture folders will display in nothing BUT thumbnails, no matter what i do)
- the defragmenter ran for 4 hours and since it doesn't display a status anymore, i could never figure out how much longer i had...so i just canceled it
- i have two hard drives in my computer - one for the OS/progs and one for (what was) my documents...i liked being able to simply redirect the "my documents" on the desktop to the second hard drive, but in vista i have to redirect the individual folders

6/19/2007 10:39:20 PM

Quote :

"- some folders STILL do the most annoying thing (picture folders will display in nothing BUT thumbnails, no matter what i do)"

you can get rid of that:

batch.bat

@ECHO OFF
@ECHO Windows Explorer Utility - Disable Folder Content Discovery
@ECHO http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/kmkenney/default.aspx
@ECHO ===========================================================
@ECHO.
@ECHO Please close any open Windows Explorer windows, save
@ECHO any open documents, and close any open applications
@ECHO before continuing, as this utility will log off your
@ECHO current session. You may then log back in and re-customize
@ECHO your Windows Explorer view settings.
@ECHO.
@ECHO NOTE: This utility will reset all of your saved folder
@ECHO views including grouping settings, thumbnail sizes, etc.
@ECHO.
@ECHO When you are ready to begin,
@pause
@ECHO.
@REG DELETE "HKCU\Software\Classes\Local Settings\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Shell\Bags" /f 

@REG ADD "HKCU\Software\Classes\Local Settings\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Shell\Bags\AllFolders\Shell" /t REG_SZ /v FolderType /d NotSpecified
@ECHO Folder views have been reset and automatic folder content
@ECHO discovery has been disabled. Press any key to log off.
@ECHO.
@pause
@SHUTDOWN /l

6/19/2007 10:42:13 PM

Quote :

"also when doing work over the network i've gotten explorer.exe to take up 1.6gb of memory... LAME"

god DAMN

6/19/2007 11:29:45 PM

7/25/2007 9:04:55 PM

Instant 1.4gb+ memory usage in explorer:

highlight 5000+ files, right click


that's it. then right click won't even show programs available, it craps out.



default install of vista with or without updates

7/25/2007 9:40:17 PM

so glad i stuck with xp

7/26/2007 2:53:00 AM

Been running Vista Ultimate 64 bit for months. Only bsods i've gotten are from overclocking, and aren't related to vista. It runs great on a raptor 10k, and 64 bit with 4 gigs of ram. The dreamscene stuff is pretty cool. I can run a 1080p BBC Planet Earth special as the desktop background, while i'm running a couple other HD movies in vlc and mpc with no frames dropped. The window select feature is awesome because it continues to run the videos when the 3D selection thing comes up.

The windows media center is the best upgrade i've seen. I never used WMC before until now. With my ATI 650 HDTV tuner it works great. It's the fastest HD DVR i've EVER seen. There's no wait times for selecting channels, no lag times when scrolling in the guide, and no wait times when pausing/fast forwarding/recording 1080i. I just recently played with a time warner HD DVR set and it was sad how slow it was compared to WMC in vista. (oh and i use my old cyberlink remote control that came with my dell laptop in 2004, and it works with vista media center without even installing any type of driver for it.)

In regard to games i've been able to play every game i've tried on Vista 64 bit. Haven't had any BSODs at all. My mom just purchased photoshop CS3, and on my PC it loads up in about 2.5 seconds from mouse click to program open. Word starts up in about half a second, and IE starts before i have my finger off the button. My windows boot time (after disabling IDE, because i have a 20x sata dvd burner) was a little over 30 seconds from power button press to Vista desktop.

The gadget feature is great, and hardly takes up any resources. I know Vista probably sucks for some of you guys running it on older hardware, but from what i've experienced with a high-end build Vista works great. In my opinion i had more issues with XP when it was first released then i did vista.

I realize i might be the minority here in regard to my opinion of vista, and believe me i bad talk Microsoft all the time, for example DX10 sucks right now, but so did DX9 when it first was implemented in 2002. Although some of the newer DX10 features in games like Call of Juarez like depth of field are amazing. It adds quite a bit to the game. Older games look flat now after experiencing the DOF in DX10. (I realize COW is a DX10 upgrade from the DX9 version, but the enhancments are quite noticeable.)

Anyone have similar experiences? Or does everyone still hate vista?

[Edited on July 27, 2007 at 11:40 AM. Reason : .]

7/27/2007 11:37:01 AM

i hate you

does that count for anything?

7/27/2007 11:39:45 AM

^Haha sure. Why do you hate me? Trust me i thought vista was crap too, before i upgraded, and believe me i thought i'd have so many issues with it i'd revert back to XP, but despite my previous notions i haven't booted up XP in months.

7/27/2007 11:43:06 AM

i still have xp media center edition. it works, and i can upgrade to vista at anytime i please, but i am waiting for sp1 to drop before i upgrade.

7/27/2007 11:46:10 AM

I'm not a huge fan of vista... I ran vista home basic for a while and it was fairly decent...

now I'm running vista business and it pisses me off all the time asking for admin rights when I'm the admin... I haven't had the time or desire to actually figure out how to turn those things off so a quick fix suggestion would be greatly appreciated... expecially since I have to freakin OK EVERY f'n file move.

The only serious problem that I've had on both versions... if I use the slide show screen saver, and its on for a long period of time, my computer won't come back, just locks up and thinks as long as I let it... and I've let it sit for long enough that the screen saver should have come back on but it doesn't and the computer is just completely locked. I've disabled the power savings mode and verified that its never suppose to suspend the computer or let the hdd shut down... but I still can't use that screen saver... I can run the Bubbles for weeks and it will come back every time though...

I like the gadgets, but overall I liked xp better... the file organization stuff is more clunky than helpfull... and I could run freakin slideshow screensaver without it locking up

[Edited on July 27, 2007 at 12:06 PM. Reason : ]

7/27/2007 12:06:14 PM

^How to disable UAC (anyone recognize that from Doom 3?)

http://www.vista4beginners.com/How-to-disable-UAC

^

Quote :

"if I use the slide show screen saver, and its on for a long period of time, my computer won't come back, just locks up and thinks as long as I let it"

Sounds like a hardware issue, instead of the OS. What video card are you using?

and what are you running it on? I actually like the start menu A LOT better. On XP on slower machines when you click the start menu it might take a few seconds to load all the folders in view, but with vista it's instant because it just overlays them instead of displaying a new panel.

Anyone try the dreamscene content? The fire one is trippy. There's a whole bunch of 1920 by 1200 content for it online now, and it looks great and doesn't seem to slow down my computer at all when running it as a desktop wallpaper, even with sound turned on.

I also find it funny that some people think Vista should run faster than a 5 year old OS on older hardware. Vista and aero will obviously look crappy unless you run it with newer hardware. In fact my load times on all my programs are significatly faster with Vista 64 than with windows XP. I doubt this has much to do with 64 bit because most of these programs are 32 bit i'm running. I've heard that Vista is just faster than XP if it's run on newer hardware, and from experience this seems the case.

So in conclusion don't upgrade to Vista unless you have a Core 2 Duo, atleast 2 gigs of ram, and in my opinion a nvidia 8*** series DX10 video card (lower end are under 100$ now so there's no point in ever buying a DX9 card anymore).

[Edited on July 27, 2007 at 12:33 PM. Reason : .]

7/27/2007 12:19:48 PM

yeah the whole upgrade thing... My computer is a bit old (4ish)

I have a p4 2.26 with 1 gig of ram and an FX5600 256MB video card...

Vista is a bit slow... but I had to wipe my computer about 4 months ago and I decided to go with vista instead of XP b/c they were about the same price and my computer was pretty much in the middle of the specifications, not towards the bottom... which allows it to run it without too many problems, but it is slow from time to time.

AAHHH SOB, homebasic recommends 512MB, BUSINESS requires 1GB(what I have)... I made a poor assumption that they would have the same general requirements

but that still doesn't give reason for the slide show business... b/c they both reacted the exact same way...

[Edited on July 27, 2007 at 12:59 PM. Reason : Business requires more than BASIC, didn't realize that...]

7/27/2007 12:55:09 PM

honestly,

there is no reason why operating systems should get bigger and bigger and become the bloated pos that they are

i would rather see a trend towards efficiency than OMG look at all the shit we can put in this or, give me the option at install by default to just load the basic os and ill choose what else i need

7/27/2007 1:34:24 PM

Quote :

"bloated pos that they are"

As I said i've had less trouble with Vista than when XP was first released.

Quote :

"trend towards efficiency"

I believe vista is more efficient than xp. The menu system is smarter and faster, boot times are faster, and every application i run is faster than when i ran it on XP.

http://www.windowsfordevices.com/news/NS5060525942.html

24 second boot time is nice. And they're moving toward embedded.

So Aficionado in your opinion. I run autocad, solid works, the latest games, etc etc and the ONLY OS i can run all these on are Vista. Vista 64 bit runs faster than any previous OS i've used and i haven't run into any trouble at all. I feel outdated when i boot up my XP hd, and i'm about to reformat it cause i haven't needed to boot up XP for anything lately.

Oh and not to mention Vista 64 has the best security out of any microsoft OS. Microsoft is finally getting back into the security game and taking some weight off 3rd party companies:

http://blogs.technet.com/security/archive/2006/08/03/444666.aspx

http://blogs.technet.com/security/archive/2006/08/12/446104.aspx

Now i realize people may throw a hissy fit when they try to run vista on older hardware, but with newer hardware everyone i know is having the same experience as me. So why is vista less efficient, and more "bloated" again?? I find xp to be this way.

7/27/2007 1:44:57 PM

i question that you need vista to run autocad

because i have the student version of 2008 on one computer at home that runs xp pro

and all the computers at work that we use for design (ansys) run xp pro as long as they are less than about 200,000 elements, more gets run on the x64 we have

there is no reason that a full installation of an operating system needs 15 GB of space regardless of $/GB cost

that really doesnt scream efficiency to me, im probably biased since i work with embedded controllers and assembly code all day

7/27/2007 1:53:46 PM

^ You probably know tons more than me in regard to embedded systems, but if microsoft is moving toward that direction (like in the link i posted), as they are licensing Vista for embedded users than that seems like a good thing.

In regard to autocad 08, i didn't mean i specifically needed vista to run it, i was more refering to OSX because whenever I mention vista on TWW, it seems there's some mac person who tries to tell me to go to a mac. My counter argument is that none of the cad software i run will work on OSX. Then my argument for Vista is that none of the newer games i run will run natively on XP. I'm using a DX10 card (8800gtx) along with vista, and that's the only combination you can use (aside from ati's dx10 cards) that allow me to play the newest games. So what i meant was that there's not an OS on the planet that runs everything i want to run except for Vista. Oh and i've tried Linux gaming through various distros and i found it way too time consuming in regard to set-up and trying to hunt down drivers.

In regard to your $/GB cost issue with Vista taking up lots of space i hardly see the argument here. You can't except newer OSs to take the same or less space because they're newer. 5 years ago having a Tbyte on your home pc was hardly heard of, but as i have 1.2 Tbytes and it was pretty cheap i don't see the argument here. When you can buy 500GB+ hd's for rather cheap now-a-days i find it hard to believe anyone would complain about an OS taking up 15 gigs when you have so much space from today's cheap HDs. As games get larger, cad software gets larger, and most applications in general get larger i don't see a problem with an OS getting larger.

When you speak in regard to Vista and newer software you ALSO have to pair it with newer hardware. You can't expect to see an advantage with vista on older hardware, or with HD prices as they were 5 years ago. Today though space is so cheap, 15 gigs is nothing.

If you would like to learn more about custom vista installs then look into vista lite:

http://www.vlite.net/about.html

I'm sure you'll be able to get Vista quite small with that. There's also other 3rd party applications out there but as i have 1200 GB of storage i hardly see a problem with 15 gigs (or whatever vista is, i trusted you on that one as i didn't look it up). Also i don't see any need to remove features like Aero from Vista because as i said, it's faster than XP and applications open almost instantaneously so i don't care.

[Edited on July 27, 2007 at 2:17 PM. Reason : .]

7/27/2007 2:13:22 PM

The only time a reboot my XP box is when my creative soundcard fucks up and needs a powercycle.

7/27/2007 6:08:54 PM

vista is a fucking memory whore. took 1.4gb of system memory for video ram (i have 320 on the card). plus explorer loves to take all my ram.

7/27/2007 6:34:19 PM

i have a somewhat related question. i've noticed that my comp will be running and running and sometimes it'll tell me that the virtual memory or page file is nearly full. i'll check the running processes and barely any of my physical ram is being used. any idea why soooo much virtual memory is used with windows?

7/27/2007 6:54:12 PM

Quote :

"I also find it funny that some people think Vista should run faster than a 5 year old OS on older hardware."

Umm, the purpose of the OS is to be the foundation on which everything else runs, not to give fancy eye-candy. Forgive me, but I should hope that in 5 years that an OS can squeeze more out of hardware than it previously did.

oh, and thanks for fucking up the thread, bous

[Edited on July 27, 2007 at 10:31 PM. Reason : ]

7/27/2007 10:30:48 PM

vista fucked up its own thread.

you fucked up your own life.

7/27/2007 11:15:17 PM

vista rules, youre just stupid

7/27/2007 11:33:41 PM

so i got my new laptop today, and vista didn't make it past the set up windows screen, it locked up the first time i hit next

8/15/2007 7:48:16 PM