Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.

Poll

Have you tried a beta version of Vista?

I've tried Vista Beta RC1 or newer.
[ 53 ] (29.3%)
I've tried an older beta of Vista or Longhorn.
[ 10 ] (5.5%)
I havn't tried a beta of Vista yet, but I want to.
[ 32 ] (17.7%)
I don't care about Windows Vista.
[ 86 ] (47.5%)

Total Members Voted: 214

Topic: Windows Vista Poll and Discussion (Read 73293 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #125 –
Quote from: kanak on
I agree. After using vista for a month, i removed it and went back to xp; i just couldn't justify the extra bloat. Looks like Vista is the new Windows ME.

Windows has always been the new ME, hasn't it?
err... i'm not using windows any more ;)

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #126 –
Oh, now we're going straight down fanboyville. /me goes looking for a padlock

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #127 –
well, it seems that in the people there is some sort of updater thingy waiting to sc*** the current stable system..., i have killed the wish for a while by installing zune theme for xp sp2  (oh, and i got a new cpu, that will do it for a while)
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #128 –
I will wait until the comany release some decent Vista driver...Creative, nVidia is a mess right now with Vista driver situtation :/
still LAME 3.96.1 --preset extreme -q 0 -V 0 -m s at least until 2005.

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #129 –
I luuuuurve  my Windows-2003-as-a-workstation

Seriously. Windows NT 5.1 is really stable and uses less resources than Windows NT 5.0

Is Vista = Windows NT 6.0?
 

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #131 –
Windows Vista is NT6 in kernel "revisions", Yeah. Longhorn Server and eventually Vista (after SP1) will be NT6.1, though.

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #132 –
Quote
I luuuuurve  my Windows-2003-as-a-workstation


I liked it when I had it, but it didn't reconize my external acomdata hard drive. Anoying :/
And if you believe theres not a chance to die...

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #133 –
I realize this topic hasn't been touched in a while but I've just made the move to Vista 64 after SP1 became available. I have two issues so far that I really haven't been able to resolve. I have a fairly decent system which I built myself with the following specifications :

AMD64 x2 4600+ processor
4GB Super Talent DDR-II 800 memory
Gigabyte GA-MA770-S3 motherboard
Asus 8500GT video card

The motherboard has a RealTek 888 audio chip which is pretty good as far as I can tell. I've also tried the Creative PCIE X-Fi Extreme Audio (a Audigy 2 under the hood I'm told). Both devices have the latest drivers available for them and the motherboard has the latest BIOS revision available.

1) Vista is indicating a high amount of CPU utilization when playing any audio. FB2K is using about 15~25% over the 2~10% that Vista alone uses. WinAmp uses a little more generally speaking though this could be due to the somewhat active graphics in that applications. Of course Windows Media Player is just plumb pathetic using about 50% more than WinAmp and frequently pings one of the cores over 75% utilization.

2) Another problem I've had is getting 5.1 sound for my Logitech Z5500's from either sound card via the SPDIF optical cable. It simply won't work. I get 2 channels and that's it. And that's from both cards.

Note that I'm not entirely incapable when it comes to computers and I've optimized many Win95 ~ WinXP systems for end users. I've also made a couple of tweaks to drop the CPU usage down slightly on this system as well. Still, there is some reason for this high usage that I simply can't figure out. Any recommendations short iof rolling back to XP are most welcome.

P.S. I forgot to mention that the audio files are .wav's ripped directly from CD's and stored on an internal hard drive though I found no difference when I tried MP3's as well. Also there is no antivirus installed as I don't bother with such things.

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #134 –
Oh well. Like so many opthers, I just dumped Vista. Now playback takes 0~1% of the proc. under XP x64.

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #135 –
Diggin' this thread outta the dumpster, huh?

Quote from: photographer on
Oh well. Like so many opthers, I just dumped Vista. Now playback takes 0~1% of the proc. under XP x64.


Putting off building my next computer because I'm STILL using XP...
It's due for a good DEGAUSSIN'

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #136 –
So am I. I stick to XP, and stay away from Vista like the plague.

Oh, and I'm part of this growing movement:

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #137 –
For MS's sake, I hope Win7 doesn't flop as well.

Anyways, it has been a very good few years for Apple and Linux
It's due for a good DEGAUSSIN'

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #138 –
Quote from: OmniCbex on
Anyways, it has been a very good few years for Apple and Linux

Indeed!

Ive moved to Linux pretty much fulltime (sure i cant play crysis but thats a good thing) and have installed it on everyones box that used to bother me with computer problems (even my grandparents!). Yes my grandparents are using Xubuntu! Probably the most computer illiterate people i know and they say its easier then windows.  No pop ups, firewalls, doesnt fragment, doesnt crash, runs on last decade machines (xfce). . . it works! Average joe with a $400 box just needs someone to set it up for them. . . get all the codecs/plugins and then just click on the update icon when they see it till their computer brakes.

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #139 –
I don't care about Windows Vista.
I havn't tried Vista.
Not for as long as I can help it.
If age or weaknes doe prohibyte bloudletting you must use boxing

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #140 –
Only Microsoft has a need for Vista. Of course they opt to sell Windows to everybody over again rather than provide service packs for free. The interface must be different and the whole package must be bigger in order to justify the purchase in eyes of the consumer. If the product looked like normal Windows (Win98/2k), some wouldn't understand why pay again. But bigger is perceived as better the same way as louder is.

I have not tried to play with Vista yet, because there is no free computer for experiments of this kind. I've interacted with it a little on a client's computer and was offended that nothing in the interface is where it used to be.

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #141 –
Tried Vista, hated it. I'll wait for Windows 7, gonna be built around Windows Server 2008, which kicks ass

For now I'll stick to OpenSUSE 11.0 and OS X
o.O I am... the threadkiller O.o

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #142 –
My main reasons for not wanting to use Vista:
0) The high system requirements - especially the CPU.
My Athlon XP system works fine for me still but would throw a huge fit if asked to run Vista. Next year will be 8 years if memory serves for my main winXP box and win2k crash box (with upgrades along the way of course).
1) The cost - I have no intentions of paying for a microsoft operating system, unless that 'Windows 7' is available in a form resembling *nix. As in a more modular  kernel with a better variety of GUIs available ranging from minimal to full blown eyecandy.
For that matter I would just dual boot WinXP and BSD/Linux/whatever else and incur no additional cost in the OS area whenever I move to the world of PCIE slots and SATA.

Vista is in the 'no real need for it personally' category that covers Internet Explorer and MS office as well.

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #143 –
Speaking of interface bloat, I don't understand the concept of "server core" they're pushing (server editions of Vista only). Why these two extremes? The choice is between Vista gui with huge fat icons, and no gui at all. Why the heck we can't have normal graphic interface with icons that are just big enough to relay the message? A normal work computer, not a 3D game. They criticized nLite for providing modularity, yet failed to deliver a comparable installer themselves.

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #144 –
Update: Still not running Vista and still no plans to ever do. In the meantime, because of my job, i've interacted with over 100 vista boxes, and while i like that microsoft is providing me with income because of all the vista problems, my problem is that the most frequent "solution" i propose to customers, is to "upgrade to XP", simply because vista considers itself to be so perfect, that i have little flexibility in manually correcting or overriding stuff. Vista knows whats best, so no need to let the user/technician decide. Seriously, without drastic modifications, vista has some remarkable similarity to a trojan horse - a fully automated remote control, disguised as an OS.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #145 –
I find that there isn't enough improvement in Vista, and as such to me upgrading to it seems quite pointless unless one really likes the eyecandy. Especially since most software released for Vista will also support XP for quite some time.

I value a solid stable system above anything else. For that I run Arch Linux as my main and XP x64 for when I need windows.

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #146 –
I'm still running Windows 2000 Server as my desktop (has remote desktop built-in, usefull to work as a limited user and then RDP to localhost as Administrator to do administrative tasks).

I have here by my side a new machine I built with 8 GB RAM, dual Core 2 and two 500 GB SATA disks and a 256 MB NVidia VGA, and it has Windows Server 2003 R2 SP2 x64, which is going to be my next desktop, but somehow I just don't feel the need to change just yet (Win2k works so well...). So I'm using the new box just to fool around with iESX and some other things using the second HDD...

Vista is not an option.

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #147 –
I've been using Vista Home Premium for several months now on two home laptops, and quite like it actually, though nothing to write home about. I wouldn't go back to XP for sure at this stage, have experienced very few (and correctable) hardware compability issues, installed all the updates, there have been quite a few. Bit slow at times maybe, and bloated, but with a big hard drive not too much of a problem, so Vista's OK with me.

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #148 –
I like some parts of vista (the better cron e.g.) some things I don't like. Selecting desktop icons with the mouse has become more difficult because the whole area until the next item is selected. Minor.

Major: I'm on a p3/3ghz, virtually 2 cores. Using fb2k and one encoder thread makes the system sometimes hardly responsive, especially if tags are written etc. It does use all ressources sooner somehow. XP works simply fluently if I have one encoder thread and do other things at the same time.

I like the user switching which I have never used at XP.

Also, I installed a patched terminalserver dll, I can open a rdp session while my wife works at the PC. (You can have this on XP as well).

You pretty quickly get used to the start menu. You'll never click through "all programs" any more, but most likely type into the search field and press enter.

The prefetch/superfetch systems work very well. It needs to learn though. It's really true, applications first startup (when it's not in cache) may be 1/2 as on XP. Also Windows boot time increases. It's maybe 25 seconds here, definitely not worse than on XP. The user profile part is faster than on XP.
I like fast application startup. Office programs or the VS2008 IDE start in about a second.

I have a Vista Business license as well as XP pro. I use XP for gaming.

It's the same every version. People say "Bypass version [n], wait for [n+1]". *yawn*.

Windows Vista Poll and Discussion

Reply #149 –
i hate vista... but dx10. only this reason instal vista.