# Vista



## geepondy (Jan 30, 2007)

*If you're using Vista, what are your impressions?*

I know CPF contains a high amount of Linux and Mac users (anybody still use plain unix?) but was wondering if anybody went out and became an early adopter of Vista? Any good forums where users post their first impressions? As mentioned I hope to become a Vista user sooner rather then later when I buy a new pc.

EDIT: I changed the title. Rather then have a MS vs. other os wars, my main intention when I started this thread was for early users to post their opinions.


----------



## Marty Weiner (Jan 30, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*



geepondy said:


> I know CPF contains a high amount of Linux and Mac users (anybody still use plain unix?) but was wondering if anybody went out and became an early adopter of Vista? Any good forums where users post their first impressions? As mentioned I hope to become a Vista user sooner rather then later when I buy a new pc.



Not yet but I ordered another 512MB of RAM today to get me up to 1GB.

I took a look at "Vista" listings on eBay this morning and there were over 500 already.

It's going to happen for me eventually but I'm waiting for the SP (Service Pack) to be issued before I jump in the pool.


----------



## bwaites (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

I was/am a Beta tester.

Running it on a Dell with a Gig of memory, Pentium 4 3.0 chip.

It's pretty, but it is a hog. The computer runs slower than it did with XP, though just marginally.

I've been running it for about 6 months on that machine, doing the upgrades and additions when prompted. 

It would probably run better on my AMD 4800+ with 2 Gigs, but I've had lots of driver issues with it where it is and my AMD machine is my video editing rig and has lots of drives, some of which I have had to be very careful installing to make sure the drivers would work with the editing software I use. 

Some of my regularly used programs and printers still don't have drivers available.

I think I won't buy it to install until I have no choice, or I buy a new machine.

Bill


----------



## WNG (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

Like XP before it, I won't be switching over to Vista for a LONG time. XP was a PITA when it hit the streets, sp 1.1 came out pretty quick! There's no evidence to remove any doubt that MS will do anything different this time.

For now, it's win2k-sp4, winXP-sp2, Linux. Vista may make a MacOSX adopter out of me. (yikes!)


----------



## chrwe (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

I had it (Vista business) lying around for a few months (legally obtained) and installed it today after receiving my new computer.

My first impressions:

It is pretty colorful. Looks nice iff you like colors. I am running the 'Aero Glass' ui.
I have yet to see a new functionality that improves 'productivity'.
It seems as stable as its predecessor. (Well, it better be...)
Technical observations:

If you are deploying vista in a business environment, you better read these documents. It will be a PITA in a heterogeneous environment with 2K/XP. And no, the solutions in the documents are not 'fine', unless very specific requirements are met.
If you are not deploying vista in a business environment, you better read at least _Managing Roaming User Data Deployment Guide.doc_ of the above documents. It contains valuable information about why your user profile won't be good with vista and how to fix it.
Vista loves. Loves memory. Lots of it. It has no problem consuming 1 GB of ram while I am surfing cpf. I have no clue how this can be. Right after start it eats up 600 MB. However I supply it with 2.5 GB of ram; we'll see how long it takes until it consumes all of it.
An E6400 will do for an processor, an nvidia Geforce 7600 GS chip will do for a graphics adapter; I guess, quite a bit less will do (unless we are not talking gaming). But beware: You will need memory.
Oh, did I mention it really likes memory? Throw in a fast SATA-HDD and you should be good to go.

Do not upgrade unless you know why you are doing it.


----------



## Brighteyez (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

Early sales figures would seem to indicate that the sales aren't all that great and that more versions seem to be sold installed on a computer. It looks like it might be a good year for computer manufacturers with people who will buy a computer to upgrade to Vista than those who will go to the expense of adding components and then upgrading the operating system (which could very well exceed the cost of a new computer.)



geepondy said:


> I know CPF contains a high amount of Linux and Mac users (anybody still use plain unix?) but was wondering if anybody went out and became an early adopter of Vista? Any good forums where users post their first impressions? As mentioned I hope to become a Vista user sooner rather then later when I buy a new pc.


----------



## Brighteyez (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

How did you get it months ago if it just became available yesterday? Is it one of the preview editions?



chrwe said:


> I had it (Vista business) lying around for a few months (legally obtained) and installed it today after receiving my new computer.
> 
> 
> Do not upgrade unless you know why you are doing it.


----------



## KC2IXE (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*



geepondy said:


> I know CPF contains a high amount of Linux and Mac users (anybody still use plain unix?) but was wondering if anybody went out and became an early adopter of Vista? Any good forums where users post their first impressions? As mentioned I hope to become a Vista user sooner rather then later when I buy a new pc.



I've been using Vista since Mid December (I'm an MSDN subscriber). I like it, but it takes horsepower, there are a few issues - some software doesn't run (very few) and there is real fun doing things like sharing directories - by default when you "share" a directory - your only sharing it between users on that Box - you have to do a bit of hoop jumping to share on your intranet (for security reasons) - I still have not been able to print to the printer on my wife's laptop, but that MIGHT not be vista - might be the laptop (think it is)

I love the search stuff built in, Aero is fairly slick, the task switcher is nice. Some of the desktop gadgets are nice.

All in all, I like Vista, but it takes some getting used to.


----------



## Carpenter (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

Big Business' were able to get it back in November. The home users had to wait until this week.


----------



## KC2IXE (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*



Brighteyez said:


> How did you get it months ago if it just became available yesterday? Is it one of the preview editions?



Corp Tech partners, and anyone who subscribes to the MSDN Universal has had access to the released versions since sometime in Novemeber or December - I've had my copy of Ultimate installed since Early December. I needed a new PC, and decided that I was going to just install Vista on it


----------



## Brighteyez (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

Yeah, I thought it was sometime last month, that's why I was wondering how he could have had it months ago, if the MSDN version wasn't even posted until early last month.



KC2IXE said:


> Corp Tech partners, and anyone who subscribes to the MSDN Universal has had access to the released versions since sometime in Novemeber or December - I've had my copy of Ultimate installed since Early December. I needed a new PC, and decided that I was going to just install Vista on it


----------



## Movemint (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

I am using the beta right now, only cause XP on my other drive is giving me the BSOD! If I had a gig of memory or more I would like Vista better. Vista runs a bit slow for me since I'm using Ultimate. Vista is nice, but no reason to shell out big bucks to upgrade right away for me.


----------



## Trashman (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*



bwaites said:


> I was/am a Beta tester.
> 
> Running it on a Dell with a Gig of memory, Pentium 4 3.0 chip.
> 
> ...



You're running it on a Pentium 4? I thought Vista required a dual core processor. Doesn't it?


----------



## chrwe (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*



Brighteyez said:


> Yeah, I thought it was sometime last month, that's why I was wondering how he could have had it months ago, if the MSDN version wasn't even posted until early last month.



Hmm... Thinking about it, you might have caught me in an exaggeration there. I think it came with that MAPS subscription like two or three months ago. I cannot give you an exact date, so let us rely on the date you named. OTOH: Can't we let pass 'two months' as 'a few'? Reading my post again I shouldn't have posted that sentence, as it does not contribute in any way. I was just so proud of being able to refrain from installing it for months, i had to share


----------



## bwaites (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

It does not require a dual core processor to run, but as someone else noted, it does like lots of memory!!

Bill


----------



## KC2IXE (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*



Trashman said:


> You're running it on a Pentium 4? I thought Vista required a dual core processor. Doesn't it?



No


----------



## blake711 (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

I have been running it in a multi boot environment for a while now since some of the early betas through the RCs and now a full version. Service Pack one is already scheduled for q3/07 sometime in September I think. I think its a nice os it has bugs as all new software does but it does some really cool stuff. My only suggestions are you may want to wait till SP1 hits. If you don't do that make sure your box is very stout. The minimum requirements are what it will run on. Not what it will run good on. You need a box thats a high end machine less than 6 months old imo to run it and have a good experience better than XP.

Blake


----------



## Kuvittelija (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

I've used Vista two months now and I like it very much. Nice eye candy, more secure, much better over long time with its automatic defrag. 
Some of the best arguments to get Vista: http://tech.msn.com/microsoft/article.aspx?cp-documentid=2664459

On the other hand, this is a very fine time to stop and give Linux a thought also...
Best and *easiest* Linux distro I've ever used is Linux Mint(based on Ubuntu Linux).
Here you can find live cd you can download and test [/U]without having to install it: http://linuxmint.com/download.html
I'm using version 2.1 Bea at the moment and everything is working great on my Acer 2001 laptop which is 2,5 years old with Pentium 1,4 M. Mint support seems almost nil but since it's based on Ubuntu support can be easily found on Ubuntu forums.
3-D desktop can be added using Beryl add-on.

Tuomo


----------



## DarkLight (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

I tried the beta, not too impressed.

Msoft needs to LOWER system requirments not raise them..


----------



## blake711 (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*



DarkLight said:


> I tried the beta, not too impressed.
> 
> Msoft needs to LOWER system requirments not raise them..



Shoot OEMS were ticked off that the requirements where even higher. They want to sell lots more hardware..


----------



## Tritium (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

Not me I am sick and tired of the Microsoft "Crazy Train" (DRM)


Thurmond


----------



## ViReN (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

I have had hands on with Vista for various versions, Some Observations
To Run it equivalent to your Current XP you need...
1) 4 core processor (Bare Minimum 1 GhZ)
2) 4 GB Memory (Bare Minimum 2 GB)

I have no intentions to upgrade my machines until a better version.

I had to upgrade my Hard Ware from Win98SE --> WinXP 4 yrs back and the upgrade was like from 512 MB RAM, 500MHz P III Processor to 2GB RAM 2.4 MHz P4 HT to make XP run same speed as that of Windows 98 SE (you see how much performance improvement is required?)

Now for Vista, It would require same 4 - 5 times Power of XP to run at same speed and feel.

What you got with 98SE --> XP Upgrade... a bit of security features (with SP2).. lots of bugs and virusus... otherwise nothing other than look and feel upgrade.... I think same applies to Vista.... no wonder hardware vendors love Microsoft :nana:


----------



## PhotonBoy (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

Maybe in 4 years when I need a new PC, Google will have taken over Microsoft and I'll be able to get Vista for free.


----------



## IsaacHayes (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*



DarkLight said:


> I tried the beta, not too impressed.
> 
> Msoft needs to LOWER system requirments not raise them..



YES! I see no reason why the sys requirements for say XP shouldn't be much more than win95. Seriously, as new hardware comes out, computers should be faster and able to run more programs right? But that's not the case, it's always your system is barely fast enough to not annoy you, with most users systems that are so slow I don't see how they even put up with it at all.

This system I built in 04, runs XP, and is very repsonsive, but it does have 2GB ram, and 3 HD's all set to do a specific function to prevent slow downs.

I won't be going to Vista any time soon. I don't care about the fancy graphics which are just a slow down (and frankly, that 3D stuff is just a waste of time to someone who is used to shortcuts and clicking fewer things), and I see no other features that I need for functionality. XP is pretty good, stable (for me), easy to use/network/etc. A lot of the cool stuff longhorn was supposed to have, Vista does not. boo.

I'll upgade to Vista when programs I must have REQUIRE it. Otherwise I feel no need to spend more money on an OS and new hardware.

I will read this thread to see impressions though on those who do have it. I slacked off and didnt download the RC1 until it was too late.


----------



## ViReN (Feb 2, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

Imagine Core Duo Machine running good old Windows 95 Release 2 (commonly known as Win 97 actually)

If ANY of the later OS could do that speed performance with the Unix Like Security & Stability... I am Good to Go for that 

I still run my Windows XP with a Classic Look & Feel (Theme) as I find the bitmap Graphics not just hungry for memory but also space consuming on screen.

The classic Look & Feel does not use "BitMaps" and uses "Vector" Based things to implement Look & Feel.

It would be interesting to see a Google OS (Currently under testing, under secret conditions) Google Docs is already Public now, Have a look at Google Labs :nana:

It would also be interesting to see Mozilla based OS and the Mac OS 11 or 12, Mac OS X 10.4 / upcoming10.5 is no where near perfect either (it does crash, some reports say) but Mac's in general are FAR more stable (being Unix Based)....

just my 2 Kbits of data


----------



## Illum (Feb 2, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

vistas crashes laptops...I dont know if its the memory or...

I really dont understand why vista needs such high amounts of system resources when linux can do much of the same with only 1/3 resources...


----------



## ViReN (Feb 2, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

The Vista's "Aero" uses a Lot of Bitmaps and Alpha Channel Transparencies, for te "Better" Look and Feel, it uses bitmap for the window bar, all buttons and task bar, every bit of it is used through bitmaps, to manage bitmaps it requires memory more specifically RAM

If you see the Bare Minimalistic Windows XP Classic Look & Feel, it DOES NOT use ANY bitmap any where except for some icons .... it's very fast and light weight....Even the Windows Close, Minimize and Resize buttons on window bar are built from Fonts (Mariett some thing like that font)

(not an authoritative calculation, just for a rough guesstimate) Imagine it like this a image of 1 inch by 1 inch will consume 5148 Bites (MINIMUM) if your screen is lets say 800 x 600 Pixels, it's 480,000 Bites (MINIMUM), If windows Vista uses all that with lets say 5 windows programs running it will be 480,000 Bites * 5 = 2400000 i.e. 2.2 MB (approximately) again this is a MINIMUM and this is just about the display memory, not to talk about the other resources, usually it would be upwards of 6.6 MB per screen/window for display if in Full Color (32 bit color)

For Aero UI, each element like button uses at least 4 bitmap layers for various states
1) Deactive
2) Active
3) Hover
4) Clicked
(perhaps more)... now u know where all the memory is being eaten up.... 

where as the classic interface (on XP) does not use ANY bitmap on ANY of the button or default windows elements or other such elements. it's just a Vector Drawn Image with parameters like shadow color and highlight color, font color and font name. Window Gradient Begin and End colors. very fast and very light weight on memory.


----------



## fineday (Feb 2, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

I've tried beta versions, the main feeling is beautiful. However...it runs slowly on my computer even I have 1GB memory and a GeForce Go 6600 video card. Maybe my hard drive is too slow while Vista takes about 500MB as pagefiles when just started. 
And another problem is I only got English beta versions.  Using an English OS is not an easy task so I turned back to XP quickly. I think I also won't install Vista for a long time.


----------



## MikeSalt (Feb 2, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

At the expense of the University of Manchester, our research computer will soon be upgraded to Vista. They will also throw in an Intel Core 2 Extreme, 2Gb Corsair Ram and two nVidia GeForce 8800 GTXs in SLi mode. However, if the R600 comes out soon enough, we will have a master and 2 slave CrossFire configuration, giving us 3Gb GDDR4 VRAM. That should handle Vista. The delay is being caused by the fact that the 8800 does not yet have Vista drivers, lol.


----------



## snakebite (Feb 2, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

much ram and cpu cycles are wasted on drm crap.


----------



## chesterqw (Feb 2, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

other then being beautiful, it has nothing much.

first, it scans your computer for illegal music and video files and deletes them!!!

secondly, a fast processor, good graphic card and at least 1gb(2gb will be good) of ram free(not total, free) is needed to run the aero thing.

lastly, it gonna be patched for sure...
like window xp, it have so many fixes and patch!!!
i will surely wait for at least half a year before even upgrading to vista!


(oh yeah, it cost so damn much bought alone, it will be wiser to get a new computer that comes with it[e.g. dell, acer])


----------



## geepondy (Feb 2, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

Has this been confirmed? What criteria does it consider "illegal"?



chesterqw said:


> first, it scans your computer for illegal music and video files and deletes them!!!


----------



## Trashman (Feb 3, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*



chesterqw said:


> first, it scans your computer for illegal music and video files and deletes them!!!



What??? How is that even possible? I call BS. Windows Media Player will rip CDs, and those same (identical) files can be (are) transfered through the P2P networks. It just doesn't make sense. Are they making the abilities of their own software contrabanded? I don't think there are any telltale markers signaling that a music or video file is illegal. Just because there may not be any DRM present doesn't make it illegal. If the above, quoted statement, were true, then Vista's own ripping functions would have to add DRM to anything that it rips.


----------



## fineday (Feb 3, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*



chesterqw said:


> first, it scans your computer for illegal music and video files and deletes them!!!


:huh2: I never heard that Vista could do this...


----------



## borax (Feb 3, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*



chesterqw said:


> first, it scans your computer for illegal music and video files and deletes them!!!



If that's true, it's a big fat lawsuit waiting to happen.

In any event, Vista is a waste of time and money, MS should have just waited on putting out a new system until they could figure out how to do the things they want using a unix/linux based core.


----------



## KC2IXE (Feb 3, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*



chesterqw said:


> ...snip..first, it scans your computer for illegal music and video files and deletes them!!!



I cry BS on this one


----------



## 270winchester (Feb 4, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

I bought a Laptop 3 weeks ago to specifically AVOID the Vista. And the computer is nice and fast with a 1.8GHz procesor and 2 gigs of Ram. XP is good enough for me.


----------



## Anglepoise (Feb 4, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

I have read up a little on Vista and feel that MS is going in the wrong direction.

An operating system is all about being able to run ones applications and open and close files.

It is unproductive when the OS becomes so big and bloated that it slows down the machine and requires a Gig of memory just to run properly.

By the time XP runs out of gas, I hope there will be more viable alternatives. We sure need them.


----------



## iveseenthelight (Feb 4, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

I have an HP dv8000 laptop. Does anyone know if it will run windows vista? I can't immediatley recall its specific specs... I'm not a computer whiz I just know it was really expensive. :huh2:


----------



## PhotonWrangler (Feb 4, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

It's not for me. I need an OS that will boot the machine, run my apps and then get the heck out of my way! My hardware is for runing APPS... the OS shouldn't be the biggest, hungriest, attention-hogging app on my system.


----------



## Marty Weiner (Feb 4, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*



iveseenthelight said:


> I have an HP dv8000 laptop. Does anyone know if it will run windows vista? I can't immediatley recall its specific specs... I'm not a computer whiz I just know it was really expensive. :huh2:



Microsoft has a Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor that you can load (many megs) and it will tell what, if any, you need to load Vista.

Do a Google search.


----------



## geepondy (Feb 4, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

I ran the Vista upgrade advisor. In addition to examining your hardware requirements it will also scan your software and tell you if it thinks any may not be compatible with Vista. For an instance in my system, it said cd software writing program Nero 6 was not compatible. Nero 6 does all I need it to so I never upgraded to Nero 7 when it came out. Another plus for keeping the current OS, I guess.


----------



## Trashman (Feb 4, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*



geepondy said:


> I ran the Vista upgrade. In addition to examining your hardware requirements it will also scan your software and tell you if it thinks any may not be compatible with Vista. For an instance in my system, it said cd software writing program Nero 6 was not compatible. Nero 6 does all I need it to so I never upgraded to Nero 7 when it came out. Another plus for keeping the current OS, I guess.



So, did you go through with the Vista upgrade?


----------



## chesterqw (Feb 5, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

rofl, that was a rumor.

just in case boys in black come knocking at your door...
i warned you...

got a few jokes

it will scan your now XP computer and tell you that it sucks and needs to be upgraded so that more functions can be used.

handles mutliply pr0n site better then XP becuase of the Windows Flip 3D navigation thing, AKA multi tasking.

most "secure" Windows ever with Windows Defender and Windows Firewall.
like we don't have those with xp...


----------



## geepondy (Feb 5, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

No, I just ran the Vista upgrade advisor. I wouldn't put it on my current system as I would just barely meet acceptable hardware requirements (P4 2.26, 1gig mem).



Trashman said:


> So, did you go through with the Vista upgrade?


----------



## Fluffster (Feb 5, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

After reading quite a lot about content protection in Vista, and how much effort and computing power Microsoft is wasting on needs other than mine, I finally took the plunge and installed Linux (Fedora Core 6) on my laptop two weeks ago. To my surprise, both installing/configuring and daily use is simple and intuitive. I'm not turning back! The only thing I miss is Photoshop, and that app stays on my w2k desktop computer anyway.

I don't quite understand how an industry with combined total gross earnings comparable to the GDP of Zimbabwe can dictate terms to hundreds of millions of computer users.


----------



## chrwe (Feb 5, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*



Fluffster said:


> The only thing I miss is Photoshop, and that app stays on my w2k desktop computer anyway.



Have you seen GIMP? It's UI is quite different form PS's and I am not a graphics guy, but I have heard it can do lots of stuff.


----------



## Fluffster (Feb 5, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*



chrwe said:


> Have you seen GIMP? It's UI is quite different form PS's and I am not a graphics guy, but I have heard it can do lots of stuff.


As much as I would like to sing the GIMP's praises, it's a far cry from being as mature and capable as Photoshop. I'm afraid it lags PS by as much as 10 years of solid development...

It's not useless, though, and for very basic stuff it's very useful.


----------



## greenLED (Feb 5, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

OK, this will sound really weird coming from a decades-long PC user (who enjoys ribbing the Mac guys), but doesn't Mac already do the "Aero" thing with less resources and more stability?

:green: I can't believe I just said that.

I think it's time for me to go back to Linux.


----------



## 3rd_shift (Feb 8, 2007)

*Windows Vista is out. Now what?*

www.microsoft.com 

There are 4 versions of this out as it turns out.

The Windows Vista Advisor program has informed me that the Business edition is just fine and dandy for my pc with no real issues.
But Windows Xp Pro with all the newest updates is doing great on my machine.  

Anyone out there in cyberspace have Vista in any version yet, and how is it doing for you?


----------



## Tritium (Feb 8, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*



greenLED said:


> OK, this will sound really weird coming from a decades-long PC user (who enjoys ribbing the Mac guys), but doesn't Mac already do the "Aero" thing with less resources and more stability?
> 
> :green: I can't believe I just said that.
> 
> I think it's time for me to go back to Linux.


 
   :shakehead

Me either.

Thurmond


----------



## Pellidon (Feb 8, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

I have Fedora Core 6 on my laptop and Ubuntu 6.10 Edgy Eft on my pimary desktop. I have not found Gimp to be lacking in any of the features I actually use in Photoshop. It is missing some of the things I have never used but then why do I care? 

I have had an ongoing argument with MS over XP. It was broken. I had three identical PC's with the same brand of hardware inside. Each was built a month apart. None of the three operate my program the same way. MS trashed the API under the hood. After eight months of try this-buy this advice the engineers told me XP is broken and will not get fixed. 

My touchscreen computer that I use has a Linux driver. I am switching my VB program over to either mono or Gambas. I will not authorize the use of Vista and can't guarantee that the stability of my programs anymore. I used the exact same code over thirty times in win 95, 98 and 2K units without having to tweak it each time. 

MS and I are done.


----------



## metalhed (Feb 8, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*



PhotonBoy said:


> Maybe in 4 years when I need a new PC, Google will have taken over Microsoft and I'll be able to get Vista for free.




:lolsign:


That's just too funny...and probably true!


----------



## drizzle (Feb 9, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*



greenLED said:


> I think it's time for me to go back to Linux.


Me too. I'm already using Fedora Core on my laptop and I've finally gotten tired enough of World of Warcraft that I think I'm ready to get rid of XP on my main machine as well. That game was the last thing that really held me to XP...that and lots of inertia.


----------



## KC2IXE (Feb 9, 2007)

*Re: Windows Vista is out. Now what?*



3rd_shift said:


> www.microsoft.com
> 
> There are 4 versions of this out as it turns out.



Actually, 5

Home Basic and Pro
Business Basic and Pro
Ultimate


----------



## not2bright (Feb 9, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

I purchased a laptop on Monday 1/5/07 with Vista Home Premium pre-loaded.

The machine is a Compaq V6205nr, 2.0Ghz Turion, 1GB mem, 80GB HD, Dual-layer DVD burner, 15.4" brightview widescreen, all for $599 from Best Buy.

I got rid of the free bloatware that came installed and loaded Office Pro 2003, Firefox, and my other apps except iTunes (waiting for the Vista fixed version).

It runs the Aero 3D thing just fine, and for a sub $600 machine it runs very well.

I do expect to encounter problems, and yes the Apple commecials are true that Vista asks you to "accept" or "deny" programs and actions as they are opened. I'm going to leave that on for now as a simple tap of your finger on the touchpad isn't a bother for me.


----------



## KC2IXE (Feb 9, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*



not2bright said:


> ...snip...
> I do expect to encounter problems, and yes the Apple commecials are true that Vista asks you to "accept" or "deny" programs and actions as they are opened. I'm going to leave that on for now as a simple tap of your finger on the touchpad isn't a bother for me.



Vista only asks you to accept/deny when a program is trying to either run with Admin priviliges, OR is trying to write outside the users home directory space (or the public space)

As Most older developers under windows did not not try writing with "least user priviliges" you will get this until you upgrade - OR you don't use the default data directory for these programs, and have them store data up under your user space, instead of under their own directory.

I rarely see the accept/deny screens anymore, unless I'm mucking around doing things I should be  ( I'm a developer - so I do that a lot )

As you upgrade to software that is "Vista aware" that dialog will be seen less and less


----------



## 3rd_shift (Feb 9, 2007)

*Re: Windows Vista is out. Now what?*



KC2IXE said:


> Actually, 5
> 
> Home Basic and Pro
> Business Basic and Pro
> Ultimate



You are correct. 

There are 5 versions.


----------



## raggie33 (Feb 9, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

when i ran it .it would say i am running low on memeory .if i recall it did it when trying to view hdtv with the media thingy.but i forget i had 1 gig a ram.after that i quit useing it but i may reinstall the rc1


----------



## Closet_Flashaholic (Feb 10, 2007)

*Re: Any early users of Vista?*

I won't be using Vista, and I am a software engineer..... (been developing software for 15+ years and using Windows since v1.02 - and before that, DOS).

When I heard about Vista, I vowed that I would be using *nix on my home systems before Vista went public... I kept my promise.

Running 4 machines at home: Ubuntu 6.06 LTS, 6.06 Server, Solaris 10
Parent's machine: Ubuntu 6.06 LTS
Brother's machine: Win 2K.

It's interesting after worrying about virii, and worms and trojans and email security over the past 15 years, now that I am using *nix on my machines, I actually spend much less time maintaining them. TJW (They Just Work). My 6.06 server hasn't been rebooted since September (UPS battery died, didn't know it, so power interruption did it in..).

Goodbye MS, you can keep your DRM BS and the $400 pricetag for Vista... and your security problems, and your ambition to extort money from every user.. I am tired of MS and have moved on. Vista??? what's that?


----------



## geepondy (Feb 10, 2007)

*Re: If you're using Vista, what are your impressions?*

EDIT: I changed the title. Rather then have yet another MS vs.other os wars, my main intention when I started this thread was for early Vista users to post their opinions.


----------



## KC2IXE (Jun 19, 2007)

I've been watching a lot of threads where people are complaining about Vista, most saying they don't want to upgrade.

I'm wondering, how many of you have TRIED it?

I installed 32 bit Vista (NOT 64 bit) at home back when it was first available, and I'll give my simple report

It works - YES, there is some app compatibility problems - usually with small vendor apps where the software developers have NOT followed what Microsoft has been telling then for 5-10 years. 

I'm not kidding, MOST of the problems I've seen are things like vendors still using the .hlp file format, which was obsolete over 7 years! Microsoft has also been telling vendors since at LEAST the XP era "Don't write config information to your applications directory - use the api calls to place data/config info into the Users "Documents and Settings" area"

Gee - you mean that Microsoft is FINALLY doing some security? Yeah, they are, and it's broken a few things. Most of those things can be fixed on a temporary basis but either installing the application with Administrator Privileges - or at worst, Running with Admin Privs

You WILL have problems with 16 bit applications that use OCXs, but they are few and far between, and have been effectively obsolete since the 1995-1998 time frame

I will say, I hear that 64 bit Vista is another ball of wax - lack of drivers, 16 bit apps WON'T run at all etc

That said - Guess what program I've found with the most problems in Vista?

Minesweeper! Yep, the Vista version of Minesweeper hangs all the time on me

Most of the folks here in my department at work (software development) are running Vista at home, and think it's great, and we can't wait for them to upgrade us at the office

I will grant you - to get real performance out of it, you WILL need about 2 gig of memory, and a fast processor, but interestingly, at least on my home box (2 gig, E6300, moderate video card) Vista out performs XP (yeah, I had both installed for a while)


Just for what it's worth (oh, and I think where Linux has gone is cool too)


----------



## Fallingwater (Jun 19, 2007)

I will, sooner later, be forced to install it, as the moment will come when stuff won't work right in xp anymore.
But I refuse to keep a system in its "stock" status. I'll wait until it gets thoroughly patched and until utilities become available to strip it of all the stuff I don't need. My version of XP is heavily customized to fit my needs and to make it as light as possible, and I want to be able to do the same with Vista.


----------



## solay (Jun 19, 2007)

the vista source code


----------



## KC2IXE (Jun 19, 2007)

solay said:


> the vista source code



Cute

Of course looking at that code, there are some saffari issues 

The did find what, 3 exploits the 1st day?


----------



## cslinger (Jun 19, 2007)

Running it on a laptop. Ehhh nothing to write home about. Works well enough, with a few niggling bugs etc. Personally I prefer XP but I am too lazy and it hasn't pi$$ed me off enough to do the reinstall. 

All in all it really isn't bad, it just doesn't give any compelling reasons to go out and upgrade to it. 

Chris


----------



## Anglepoise (Jun 19, 2007)

I have not tried it yet , but am prejudiced anyway as 
IMHO an operating system should be a small interface between the hardware of my computer and the applications I wish to purchase and run.

I for one will keep my 3 licenses of XP going as long as i can and then switch to 'open source'. As far as I am concerned, Microsoft is heading in the wrong direction with Vista and I am not going along for the ride.


----------



## Empath (Jun 19, 2007)

KC2IXE said:


> Cute
> 
> Of course looking at that code, there are some saffari issues
> 
> The did find what, 3 exploits the 1st day?



Apple had claimed greater security with it. That must have hurt.

Oh, well! They say it's faster though. - Oops! Missed on that one too.

Other than attempting to tie the iPhone to a proprietary browser, I'm not real sure what the reasons or features are.


----------



## Kiessling (Jun 19, 2007)

My new Dell laptop came with it as the only choice.
It sucked bigtime. So big that I - a dumb user, ind you - switched to XP and installed an OS the first time in my life. Of course some things just don't work in XP as the hardware was built for Vista ... oh well. 

In detail ... none of my preferred applications worked. I bought the notebook to run Dragon Naturally Speaking ... didn't even install. Nor did my favourite game. Or quite a few other softwares I am usually using.
My version of Cubase won't run there. Will need to upgrade. cool. Another $1000 down the drain.

In addition to the laptop that cost me $2800 to begin with ... add to that the time it took me to get the thing to work ... it was a pretty expensive experience.

Never again I will buy from Dell. They sold a an expensive computer that couldn't do what the old one was able to do. Simply work.

This is Vista's fault. How dare they force an OS on us that is not supported ??? 

I hate it.

bernie


----------



## chrwe (Jun 19, 2007)

I'm using it on my main desktop computer. It does everything XP already did, adds a little eye candy, has a few useful applications ("Snippet Tool!").

Important changes are

how security settings are configured by default (much better)
how group policy templates are stored in a domain environment (betterment)
the roaming user profile directory structure is not compatible with 2000/XP profiles. This is a major PITA, especially if you have roaming users, who roam between Vista and 2000/XP machines AND are using notebooks that are not permanently connected to the network.
Apart from the last point I second your opinion of Vista. Application doesn't work with Vista --> developers missed something a few years ago.


----------



## geepondy (Jun 19, 2007)

I had posted a thread asking about Vista experiences earlier in the year. I bet I'm like a lot of guys, I won't upgrade until I get a new computer as old computer runs pretty good with xp right now. In my case, after running the MS upgrade adviser, I have a few apps that they don't think will be compatible with Vista, one of them being my cd/dvd burning software. I'm very happy with my older version of that software and don't wish to pay for a newer version so it will be compatible with Vista.


----------



## Kiessling (Jun 19, 2007)

I think we need to differentiate between trhe professional's POV and teh (dumb) user's POV.

From the pro's POV I cannto comment.

Frm the dumb user POV Vista is a joke, an insult. Where computers really need to become easier to operate and less time consuming to set up and operate and maintain ... Vista is a step back in the stone age. Nothing works, huge time and effort investment to make it run or change to an OS that will actually support your old software, useless brand-new machines that can't do anything you want them to, no easy way around on the dumb uders end, etc.

This could have been made a smooth transition. It should have been. Instead, they are forcing it down our throats and we can see where we end up.

Another factor is cost. Since every new machine will have Vista, a lot of software will need an upgrade. That costs, of course. That would not have been necessary otherwise.
I do not like that at all. My free will is basically gone. Follow or die.

bernie


P.S.: yes, I am angry, in case this isn't obvious 
Vist cost me a lot of time, money and effort and its only benefit to me is that I eliminated it from my system.

And let's not even start about DRM ...


----------



## BB (Jun 19, 2007)

From what I have read--Vista is not much more than XP as a DRM wrapper.

Just what I need... 

-Bill


----------



## raggie33 (Jun 19, 2007)

i used it in its early stages and i liked it somewhats but im waiting to sp1 or even sp2 before i comit to it 24/7 on my main rig.i sure hope they can do something about how it hoged memeory


----------



## geepondy (Jun 19, 2007)

I'm trying to think back and I can't remember but did XP get this initial reception as well? I recall for myself in the beginning I was mixed on XP and kept a dual xp/win98 boot for a while so I could use my legacy hardware that didn't work on XP. However now, there is no way I would go back to win98. I wondering how the feelings on Vista/XP will be in a year or two for now.


----------



## BB (Jun 19, 2007)

Wasn't XP the first "Windows" that fully supported USB? I remember having USB on a nice Win95 laptop for years and nothing to plug in because the OS never (?) really supported USB.

Win95 was pretty stable for me and worked well for years.

-Bill


----------



## Threepio (Jun 20, 2007)

I was happy with XP, but bought a new HP desktop that came with Vista. I guess I've been lucky, I've had no problems other than my Zune wouldn't load, Microsoft actually read my feedback reply, and sent me a phone number to a very helpful man in India, who led me through the install process. I'd missed a very obvious step, and now the Zune talks to Vista. 

I don't call myself a "Power user", but I've found the changes easy to understand and get used to. The security seems better, too. I was happy with XP, and am happy with Vista, too...

--Bob


----------



## PhantomPhoton (Jun 20, 2007)

I tried it. Too much crap, not enough utility. I was going to give it an honest try until I tried to play an HD video clip and it told me that I was not allowed to play it. (ie I didn't have a compete chain of $$$ DRM approved hardware). Funny I can play my HD video just fine on other operating systems. (And I'm talking about my own personal video that I shot and encoded myslef, not some pirated BT download of a movie etc...)
As soon as this happened I said &^$%# ^&$%$ &% ^&$^&#^& *%$& M$ Vista! And I now refuse to buy Vista or buy any computer that comes pre-loaded with Vista.

I never tested anything beyond that. So I can't help much more than that.


----------



## Cerbera (Jun 20, 2007)

I've tried Vista at the store and I found it to be a headache. The main reason is that simple things have become more complicated. I have to hit alt to access file, edit, view, etc. Of course you can change that but for a person who doesn't know how to change ANYTHING, I imagine it'd be hell!

Things are more seperated than XP default. I had to use help to find ClearType.

I know that doesn't sound severe but its just irritating.


----------



## chrwe (Jun 20, 2007)

> Where computers really need to become easier to operate and less time consuming to set up and operate and maintain...


Won't happen. The more features the user demands, the more complex the set up and administration of an operating system will become.



Kiessling said:


> This could have been made a smooth transition. It should have been. Instead, they are forcing it down our throats and we can see where we end up.


Unfortunately security has to be forced down the users' throats. NT/2000/XP offered most of the security measures available in Vista; unfortunately the common user could not be bothered with reading maybe ten pages on how to use/activate them.



> I do not like that at all. My free will is basically gone. Follow or die.


This is not true. There are alternatives (even free of license costs) that will provide very similar functionalities to Windows.

I'm not a big fan of M$, however more or less forcing operating system security on the users was a good step to take.


----------



## RadarGreg (Jun 20, 2007)

I recently bought a new Toshiba Satellite laptop with Vista Home Premium installed. It was mainly purchased as a portable gaming platform since my older laptop just didn't have the horsepower to run most newer games. My biggest gripe with Vista is I can't reliably connect to my home wireless network with it. Both of the other two laptops in my house can connect easily, so it isn't my wireless network that is broken. The new laptop can see the wireless access point, but just can't always connect to the internet. Sometimes it will for a little while, but then it will drop out and not connect again. Calls to Toshiba and to Linksys were fruitless. Of course, I've updated drivers on the new laptop with no effect. I suppose a fix will be available in a patch at some point, but it is annoying that a new computer would not work reliably when my older one connects just fine.

As for the other bells and whistles of Vista, I guess they are ok, but nothing I'd go out of my way to purchase. XP was doing just fine for me.


----------



## KC2IXE (Jun 20, 2007)

Cerbera said:


> I've tried Vista at the store and I found it to be a headache. The main reason is that simple things have become more complicated. I have to hit alt to access file, edit, view, etc. Of course you can change that but for a person who doesn't know how to change ANYTHING, I imagine it'd be hell!
> 
> Things are more seperated than XP default. I had to use help to find ClearType.
> 
> I know that doesn't sound severe but its just irritating.



I assume you are talking IE7 - that's simple to change - right click on a blank spot on the tool bar, and select "Menu Bar" - done - you have your menu back

Menus off in IE7 isn't only a vista thing - it's that way in IE7 on XP too


----------



## KC2IXE (Jun 20, 2007)

I will say that a lot of Vista is eye candy.

The big changes - 
finally, at least some security on by default
Reparse Points/Junctions
It's been VERY stable - for me
For ME, in MY config, it task switches MUCH faster, and multitasks a lot better
Sleep is actually USEFUL, and works


Most of the rest has been available 3rd party (or in other OSes, but not XP), but..

Thinks like "search everywhere" - basically Windows Desktop Search, but built into the OS and enabled inside applications - quite nice - one thing I really like - when you pop the start menu, the search box is right there - type say "Notepad" and it'll run - or any program - it knows the EXE name as well as the friendly name, so it's a bit faster than cmd and typing the name (NOTE Announced today that Microsoft is going to change Vista to allow Google Desktop search ast the default - agrement with courts)

A 1/2 decent backup program (for those NOT using USB external HDs)

I like the new task switcher

The New clock applet having multiple time zones is sweet - for ME - I'm a ham, and having a GMT clock up is nice

Windows Features - the ability to turn on and off features I don't like/need

Like I said - a bunch of neat little apps that are available elsewhere (a real, working calender for those who don't want to use outlook, a better email program - not that I will use it - non Msft for me there)

Cleartype built in and enabled 

Virtual PC works a lot better under Vista (a BIG deal for me, probably a total NON issue for 90+% of users out there)



Bad things -
It forced me to a Nero upgrade for ISO burning (regular cd/dvd burning is built in) - I hated the new Nero, so I switched to Burncdcc - and the price was right - Free - a nice, NO INSTALL ISO burner
http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/utilities.html

TheBat (email program) was a tad strange to setup, but that was because I was NOT using the Vista Version (It came out 2 weeks later or so)


As I said - it's not as bad as some folks say - particularly if you believe some of the FUD out there. Is it a huge breakthrough? No


----------



## chrwe (Jun 20, 2007)

KC2IXE said:


> Virtual PC works a lot better under Vista (a BIG deal for me, probably a total NON issue for 90+% of users out there)



Virtual PC is teh ghey (not that there's anything wrong with that). Try VMWare Server (also free) - it's so much faster. Gives a warning under Vista but runs just fine.


----------



## solay (Jun 20, 2007)

KC2IXE said:


> Cute
> 
> Of course looking at that code, there are some saffari issues
> 
> The did find what, 3 exploits the 1st day?



"[FONT=&quot]Ok. The idiot seems to have some high end hardware.
Lets make his life miserable[/FONT]"


----------



## Mike Painter (Jun 20, 2007)

geepondy said:


> I'm trying to think back and I can't remember but did XP get this initial reception as well? I recall for myself in the beginning I was mixed on XP and kept a dual xp/win98 boot for a while so I could use my legacy hardware that didn't work on XP. However now, there is no way I would go back to win98. I wondering how the feelings on Vista/XP will be in a year or two for now.




Yes it did. So did DOS 2.0, 3.0, Windows 3.0.... and now Vista.
The bad press in the big rags have essentially said the same thing for each release. Bugs, hardware, applications, and the users have said they would wait, that it was not as good... There are still some CP/M users out there
The BIG difference to anyone who was around then is that as each iteration went by the press had less and less to say and the users stopped complaining sooner. Frequently this was when they found out that there was an easier way then before to do what they had done before.

To the user who just wants a simple DOS, I'd suggest CP/M. That's the way it was back then. If you had 50 applications you had 50 print drivers, one for each. In fact you would tend to have a huge number of files that did the same thing, each in it's own little drawer. The command structure was the one the programmer liked so Control-K on one app might save a file in one case, do nothing in most of the other cases and delete a paragraph in another.
Ther used to be over 200 different ways to write to a disk drive and you might have to write your own screen driver.
Since everything has to compete, prices would be a "bit" higher. dBase II, a fair CM/M program was about $500.00 back then.

I've been there and done that. It made me a LOT of money because people had to pay for things that are built in now.

For people who want to play with an OS, UNIX is a good choice. It was never designed to be used for business applications. For people who wnt to use applications, big and bloated is just fine.
It's a bit harder to write a graphics print driver than one for a TSR-33.
(A teletype machine, frequently used for *ALL* input and output on some early machines. I.E. there was no monitor.)


----------



## Carabidae (Jun 20, 2007)

RadarGreg said:


> I recently bought a new Toshiba Satellite laptop with Vista Home Premium installed. It was mainly purchased as a portable gaming platform since my older laptop just didn't have the horsepower to run most newer games. My biggest gripe with Vista is I can't reliably connect to my home wireless network with it. Both of the other two laptops in my house can connect easily, so it isn't my wireless network that is broken. The new laptop can see the wireless access point, but just can't always connect to the internet. Sometimes it will for a little while, but then it will drop out and not connect again. Calls to Toshiba and to Linksys were fruitless. Of course, I've updated drivers on the new laptop with no effect. I suppose a fix will be available in a patch at some point, but it is annoying that a new computer would not work reliably when my older one connects just fine.
> 
> As for the other bells and whistles of Vista, I guess they are ok, but nothing I'd go out of my way to purchase. XP was doing just fine for me.


 
I fix computers on the side and this is a common problem with vista, it has a heck of time connecting to the internet whether it be wireless or hard-wired and some of the basic command line functions I used to fix intenet problems in XP no longer work in vista, vista has taken everything to an automatic state which many times doesn't work. It's just a hassle and usually takes a combination or rebooting your router and/or modem at the same time you diagnose network problems other times its just really messing with everything.


----------



## Screehopper (Jun 20, 2007)

Used Vista on my friend's computer. Dang Vista is slow, especially IE's response time. I downloaded Firefox for them and now they can surf the web quickly.


----------



## Cerbera (Jun 20, 2007)

KC2IXE said:


> Cerbera said:
> 
> 
> > I've tried Vista at the store and I found it to be a headache. The main reason is that simple things have become more complicated. I have to hit alt to access file, edit, view, etc. Of course you can change that but for a person who doesn't know how to change ANYTHING, I imagine it'd be hell!
> ...



FYI, I was not talking about IE7 alone.


----------



## snakebite (Jun 20, 2007)

vista is a steaming pile .its the new win me
most common service at the shop is to wipe new systems and install xp.
doing more custom builds now since folks cant buy a new box without vista.


----------



## Canuke (Jun 21, 2007)

I've got Vista on my new laptop. First thing I find is that even with a dual core AMD64 setup and a GIG of RAM, DVD playback in WMP11 is all stuttery. WTF? A buddy tells me that Vista needs TWO GIGS of RAM to run smoothly?!?!?

Fine. I find out that the upgrade is cheap, so now the laptop has as much RAM as this desktop -- and more CPU horsepower to boot! But DVD playback is still choppy. I'm seriously considering ditching Vista for XP using the license from the old dead laptop. That, or wait for the tweaker guides to figure out how to slim down and optimize this monster, the way they did for XP.

In the meantime, the "slower" old desktop is flying along -- on a brand spanking new install of Ubuntu 7.04. This is my first CPF post from Linux -- woohoo! I am amazed that Ubuntu recognized and correctly set up *every* bit of hardware I've got on this thing (it helps that it's all older stuff from mainstream manufacturers). 

I set it up to dual-boot with the original Windows 2000 setup, which has been running since 2002 and has served me well... but is already unable to run some of the latest apps. When the final support cutoff comes, this box will be all Linux, all the time. I will already be retiring all Windows-based Internet this weekend -- all local email, security-senstitive Web (such as online banking) and IM will be coming from this install, with Windows restricted to updates.


----------



## ks_physicist (Jun 21, 2007)

If you read the Vista license, at least the Vista Home Premium OEM license, it specifically grants you the right to install XP, Media Center, or 2000 if you don't want Vista.

I was kind of surprised by that, and consequently I re-read it. Yep, it said what I thought it said. Can't run both at the same time, obviously, but if you don't like Vista they are letting you back-grade.

My new laptop is a Toshiba, 1.73 ghz Core 2 Duo (T5300), 2 gigs ram, 200 gig drive, pretty well loaded. I skimped on processor speed because the whole package was such a good buy I couldn't pass it up; I'm not unhappy at all, that processor is screaming fast.

Anyway, back to Vista; I am not a big fan of Microsoft. I dual-boot my computers at home, but haven't taken the time to fix a couple of minor issues in Ubuntu that leave me booting XP most of the time. I had no intention of buying Vista, but that was the only option my laptop came with, so I decided to try it.

All of my important programs have, so far, installed and run just fine. I haven't tried a couple of expensive proprietary programs, but they're still housed on one of my XP machines anyway.

My two-week verdict: Vista, on a capable machine, isn't bad. The things I thought would be annoyances haven't been, and some things (like sleep mode recovery) have been better than I expected. 

I'm no Microsoft apologist or evangelist, I dislike their business tactics, and I still think they produce the most unreasonably bloated code, but so far I don't feel like they screwed up too badly. They didn't improve much over XP, but they didn't crash and burn either.

Time will tell. Ubuntu boots from CD on my laptop, but I haven't been able to configure wireless networking yet (Intel Centrino system). I might dual-boot it if I can get the wireless to work.


----------



## eluminator (Jun 21, 2007)

KC2IXE said:


> Bad things -
> It forced me to a Nero upgrade for ISO burning (regular cd/dvd burning is built in) - I hated the new Nero, so I switched to Burncdcc - and the price was right - Free - a nice, NO INSTALL ISO burner



If you mean burning a CD/DVD image, I think Nero's CD-DVD Speed works with Vista, at least 32 bit Vista.

It can burn images, it's price is right, it doesn't need to be installed, and it can also check the burn quality.

I suppose I should mention that after you click the Create Disc tab, you need to check the box for "Burn Image" before you click Start. Otherwise it will burn a disc with meaningless data on it.


----------



## geepondy (Jun 21, 2007)

Maybe someone can verify if Vista is better at the following. Once in a while, you get a hog program that may or may not behaving badly but is hogging all the cpu time. This happened to me tonight under XP. When I go to press control/alt/delete to bring up windows task manager, it takes forever and a day because this program is hogging the cpu time. When I press control/alt/delete, I want task manager to supersede every other app running and immediately become accessible. Is by any chance Vista better at this? I have a pokey single core processor, if I had a dual core processor, would it allow task manager to come up quicker when a program is hogging all the cpu time?


----------



## eluminator (Jun 21, 2007)

I can't say about Vista or dual core, but plain old hyperthreading with a Pentium is pretty good at this. The OS sees 2 CPUs apparently and a single thread can only use 50% of the total CPU time.


----------



## Cerbera (Jun 21, 2007)

eluminator said:


> I can't say about Vista or dual core, but plain old hyperthreading with a Pentium is pretty good at this. The OS sees 2 CPUs apparently and a single thread can only use 50% of the total CPU time.



Same here. I have a P4 w/HT and I haven't come across that kind of problem where task manager takes forever to load when the system is under full load...

geepondy, what program are you running and what are your specs?


----------



## geepondy (Jun 22, 2007)

I have a P3 2.26. In this case I was uploading large photo files to Costco to be printed and my Zone Alarm for whatever reason decided to hog 99 percent of the CPU while this was occurring. Running other programs was impossible and it took at least 30 seconds for task manager to appear when I hit control alt delete and then quite a while before I could scroll down the list and find the rougue program. I so want to get a new computer. I hope that even if I was to get a cheap AMD X2 processor it might be better at this.


----------



## Cerbera (Jun 22, 2007)

I have used P4 2.26 in a couple of computers and I personally don't like it. I was really slow for me. Multi-tasking was horrible even with 1GB of ram. I would suggest a P4 3.0+ w/HT or that AMD if it is compatible with your mobo.


----------



## eluminator (Jun 22, 2007)

geepondy said:


> I have a P3 2.26. In this case I was uploading large photo files to Costco to be printed and my Zone Alarm for whatever reason decided to hog 99 percent of the CPU .



I don't bother with Zone Alarm since XP has gotten it's own firewall. I know there are some who still use it, and I don't want to argue. I've never had any malware problems.


----------



## RustyKnee (Jun 22, 2007)

Cool thread and has put my mind at ease. I just hit the go button for a new notebook with vista. my "network monkey" mate said its rubbish and i shouldn't get it....he couldn't give me a good reason why apart from the game stalker wouldn't work. he did the same thing when xp came out, and xp is actually quite good if you ask me. I went to google and typed stalker vista....it works with the latest patch hehe. Like you said about the admin tick box and account...battlefield 2 and 2142 needs those to run, fine as long as i know. the more he bluntly protested with out reasoning..the more i wanted to try it.

With the state of the internet at the moment its no suprise vista has added security.

a couple of mates run it...they say they like it.

Stu


----------



## Casual Flashlight User (Jun 22, 2007)

6 weeks into owning my new lappy and I like it (Vista Home Premium).

People can bash vista it all they like, I'm enjoying browsing, watching my DVD's and the odd bit of gaming on my machine...a few nay-sayers/bashers aren't going to change that.


CFU


----------



## 3rd_shift (Jun 23, 2007)

BB said:


> Wasn't XP the first "Windows" that fully supported USB? I remember having USB on a nice Win95 laptop for years and nothing to plug in because the OS never (?) really supported USB.
> 
> Win95 was pretty stable for me and worked well for years.
> 
> -Bill



Actually, I had Windows millenium for a few years and it had full USB support.
So does Windows 2000 with the latest service pack.
The only version of 95 that worked ok for me was the "C" version that came right before windows 98.
Just my humble opinion, but I really liked windows98 second edition the most.
Everything from isa hardware, dos programs, to 32 bit programs, all worked like champs with it. :twothumbs

Presently, I'm running winxp pro with the latest service pack and updates.
Smooth sailing for me. 
Vista can wait a little longer to mature a little more.
But I'm really trying to go in the Linux64 direction 1st for now.
I have an AMD Athlon64 and no 64 bit software for it.


----------



## knot (Jun 23, 2007)

solay said:


> the vista source code




LOL. I believe Vienna will break new ground while Vista generates income in the interim. I'll wait for Vienna.

I have been running XP pro since 2002 and never have any serious problems. My computer runs 24/7 except for necessary reboots. I can do whatever I want with my computer without DRM issues (as they may arise in the future)

Vista is a resource hog.


----------



## Kiessling (Jun 23, 2007)

The problem of Vista is not Vist itself. It is the fact that it just doen't work right now with the application I (we) need ... while those do run fine on XP. It is the problem of something we do not need forced down our throats ... that is actually decreasing the usability of our computers .. and ... most importatn ... costs a lot of time and effort investment = money.

I expect a product like Vista to run. That would be the minimum requirement :sick2: and not even need discussion.


About issues like DRM ... I don't even talk about. Or I'll puke.

bernie


----------



## matrixshaman (Jun 23, 2007)

I want DOS with a GUI. :nana: Seriously I hope XP does the trick for at least another 10 years or better. When I was in the computer business full time it was fine to upgrade to the latest every year or two. But it's just not right to force upgrades on everyone. People should be able to use their computer for local apps as well as get around on the Internet safely and with full useability without having to spend a ton of money every couple years on upgrades. I would be very supportive of any companies making new technology that was still compatible or useable with existing computers as well as having whatever added features might be available for the latest OS/Computers.


----------



## knot (Jun 23, 2007)

Kiessling said:


> About issues like DRM ... I don't even talk about. Or I'll puke.
> 
> bernie



Hehehe, hear hear.


----------



## eluminator (Jun 23, 2007)

geepondy said:


> I have a P3 2.26. In this case I was uploading large photo files to Costco to be printed and my Zone Alarm for whatever reason decided to hog 99 percent of the CPU while this was occurring.



I guess Zone Alarm does all kinds of things these days besides being a firewall. Maybe it was searching each upload file looking for viruses.

If that's the case, you could probably disable the anti-virus for the duration.

I do that once in a while. If I'm copying a multi gigabyte folder to another computer, my anti-virus can use considerable CPU time. So I might disable it. My anti-virus also uses a lot of CPU time occasionally when I scan for malware with such programs as Ad-Aware. Generally it's not worth the effort to disable it though.

One thing is really slowed down by my McAfee because it sniffs around when it sees suspicious activity. It used to be that SpywareBlaster could "enable protection" in a couple of seconds after I download an update. Now it can take a couple of minutes. I guess that's the price we Windoze users have to pay to get all kinds of security protection.


----------



## geepondy (Jun 24, 2007)

This was Zone Alarm Suite which includes an anti-virus. Normally it's run ok.


----------



## Illum (Jun 26, 2007)

I think Microsoft in some way is trying to force us to buy new products even though current software is more than sufficient to our needs.

A friend's bought a new Dell desktop...he had to reformat the hard drive so many times apparently from bad sectors popping up from installing XP software such as Microsoft office, Adobe, Photoshop, etc :green:
Also note computers require tremendous hardware resources just to run Vista will force users to buy more Ram, video card etc in order to upgrade

I suspect Microsoft is trying to kill the current XP based computers secretly through windows update. A couple months ago I performed such an update to the system [typical click and go routine] well after the update the computer runs very sluggish...with a few system files taking up all the processor speed. I checked the names and locations to make sure it isn't a virus, and yep, all system files in their designated spots in system32.

My sound card went down as well, repeated warnings telling me windows cannot detect a sound card, its an ON-BOARD card for god sakes....I looked up the driver signatures and viola! its a non-XP driver for the Intel GMA900
so I downloaded a XP C-media driver and Presto! it works.

What causes windows update to install non-XP driver on an XP optimized system I will never know....but this isn't the only issue I've experienced with wrong drivers after a scheduled update...I have 2 other computers one a network card the other unexplained sluggishness


----------



## raggie33 (Jun 26, 2007)

if i had the cash id by vista it is 79 bucks for the oem version i saw this week a course its oem home basic


----------



## eluminator (Jun 26, 2007)

Illum_the_nation said:


> A friend's bought a new Dell desktop...he had to reformat the hard drive so many times apparently from bad sectors popping up from installing XP software such as Microsoft office, Adobe, Photoshop, etc :green:



Bad sectors are due to a bad hard drive. They aren't caused by installing anything.


----------



## eluminator (Jun 26, 2007)

Illum_the_nation said:


> What causes windows update to install non-XP driver on an XP optimized system I will never know....but this isn't the only issue I've experienced with wrong drivers after a scheduled update...I have 2 other computers one a network card the other unexplained sluggishness



I don't really think this is a Microsoft plot to inflict misery on us. I only install security updates. As far as I know, they never include "hardware" (driver) updates. I have rarely had a problem with security updates. By the way, the automatic update thing works well and it only installs security updates. It's particularly good for us dial-up users because the download occurs in the background and only uses otherwise unused bandwidth. If you set the options correctly, it won't install anything without your permission.

As for the driver updates, (Microsoft calls them hardware updates), you are one of many that have had problems with them. I did, and I never installed a "hardware" update since. Note that the drivers aren't from Microsoft but from the hardware manufacturers.

I think it's a good idea to avoid the "hardware" updates unless you are having problems with the hardware.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jun 27, 2007)

As has always been the case with EVERY OS that M$ has come out with, it is not even worth looking at until at least after SP-1, and many times not until SP-2 fixes all the bugs, security holes, driver issues.

The worst thing about VISTA IMHO is the ridiculous overpriced set of versions and lame installation verification procedures. In any case, if you build high performance PC's like I do, it is not worth looking at VISTA after reading about all the nightmares and wasted time troubleshooting.

Most of the major vendors have had to go back and offer XP options since there are so many problems with VISTA. Online Gaming, and the DRM are other reasons to avoid it for now. Basically, it does not offer enough of an advantage over XP Pro to bother being a M$ guinea pig....especially at their prices.


----------



## Illum (Jun 27, 2007)

eluminator said:


> Bad sectors are due to a bad hard drive. They aren't caused by installing anything.



well...maybe "bad sectors" isn't the correct term. what do you call a partitioned drive that cannot be read after a software was installed on it?



eluminator said:


> I think it's a good idea to avoid the "hardware" updates unless you are having problems with the hardware.



Sounds good, I hadn't realized that the updates for hardware comes from manufacturers...I've always thought they are patches Microsoft found to repair software conflicts between drivers and the operating system.


----------



## knot (Jun 27, 2007)

Illum_the_nation said:


> well...maybe "bad sectors" isn't the correct term. what do you call a partitioned drive that cannot be read after a software was installed on it?



I call the miracle worker: http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk


----------



## eluminator (Jun 27, 2007)

Illum_the_nation said:


> well...maybe "bad sectors" isn't the correct term. what do you call a partitioned drive that cannot be read after a software was installed on it?



I don't know what the problem is but I don't think it was caused by installing software on it.

It could be a bad hard drive. Assuming you can run XP, you can test your drives easily with Western Digital's Data Lifeguard Diagnostic for Windows. This will work for any drive. (even flash drives) Of course no diagnostic can find all problems, but I've never had this diagnostic (or Seagate's diag.) fail me.
http://support.wdc.com/download/?cxml=n&pid=999&swid=3

Before you do anything, including testing drives, make sure any valuable data is backed up. This test isn't dangerous to use, but a drive can go bad at any time and testing it could put it over the edge.

If you are using FAT32, whenever you boot up following an improper shutdown, the OS may scan the entire disk. Let it scan because otherwise you can get a corrupted file system.

If you are using FAT32 you might consider switching to NTFS.

If you partition your drives with anything other than Microsoft's Disk Management, you might be risking a bad file system. Disk Management is limited in what it can do. It can only delete and create partitions. It can not change the size of an existing partition, except by deleting it and recreating it. But at least it works.

I suggest you run the "scan disk" thing occasionally. This checks the file system. I only use NTFS but I guess it's similar for FAT32. I do it by right clicking on a drive, then click Properties > Tools tab > Check Now. Normally I don't check any boxes so it always runs immediately and doesn't require a reboot. I guess if you check any boxes, and you are checking the partition where the OS is installed, it requires a reboot to run. 

I really don't know if I need to check those boxes for "fix file system errors" and "scan for bad sectors". Any experts here? I'm mainly interested in knowing if the file system is corrupt.

A bad power supply or bad cables can also cause hard drive problems.

I have run various flavors of NT, including XP, etc., for many years and I've never had a corrupted drive except one time when the hard drive was dying.


----------



## eluminator (Jun 27, 2007)

I should have mentioned that if you run WD's drive diagnostic, you should run the "quick test". I would only run the extended test if I still had questions about the drive. You definitely don't want to run the "write zeros" thing unless you want to wipe the disk clean. "View test results" is safe to click also.


----------



## Newuser01 (Jun 28, 2007)

*Re: Vista or not to Vista .........NOT!!*

I bought Toshiba lappy (dual core, 512 mb , 60 GB hd, wireless, build in vid card! ETC...ETC.) Added 1 Gb of memory (total of 1.5 GB!).

First 2 hours of setting up the computer went fine. After that all went down hill!!........

Intermittent connection to the wireless router! (driver, reset....bla bla bla !!! no help.)
Every time I tried to do something it's asking me that it needs permission to run !!! Click here click there click here......Dammmmmclicker!!

Tried to install some (@#$%#$) program that I can't live without, one crashed Vista, one won't install and they don't have a vista version. Some of them are totally not compatible!!.

Well,,,, Looking to be XP again. But Toshiba don't have any XP driver for this lappy!! I think I'm screw so throughly that I can't even find my @#$% you know what!!

So other than eye candy and better security (from what I've heard.) it is no use to me. I did not buy this lappy so that I can keep working at it to do what I could do before without any problem before? Fr#@$%@#ing just shoot me now M$!!

Rant (off)

Kind regards.
noob
I'm just a casual computer user. (not tachie).


----------



## Fallingwater (Jun 28, 2007)

I find it hard to believe Toshiba does not provide XP drivers. Are you positive?

By the way: Shadowrun and Halo 2, games that were meant to run only under Vista in a blatant attempt to push more people to install it, have been cracked and now run under XP too. I don't care about Shadowrun, but I liked the plot of halo and really want to play the second episode. Woo!


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jun 29, 2007)

Fallingwater said:


> I find it hard to believe Toshiba does not provide XP drivers. Are you positive?
> 
> By the way: Shadowrun and Halo 2, games that were meant to run only under Vista in a blatant attempt to push more people to install it, have been cracked and now run under XP too. I don't care about Shadowrun, but I liked the plot of halo and really want to play the second episode. Woo!



LOL! M$ is sweating bullets that their precious Vista is getting so hosed. They totally blew the launch with all the complex and overly expensive packages and verification process. That Halo/Shadowrun ploy was uber-lame.

I have little respects for Mac computers (outside of media uses), but their commercials about this are some of the best entertainment I have seen.


----------



## Marduke (Jun 29, 2007)

I still find it hilarious that it took them so many years to do a half a$$ copy/ripoff of Mac OS-X. If you've ever used both, you know exactly what I mean.


----------



## cerbie (Jun 29, 2007)

geepondy said:


> Maybe someone can verify if Vista is better at the following. Once in a while, you get a hog program that may or may not behaving badly but is hogging all the cpu time. This happened to me tonight under XP. When I go to press control/alt/delete to bring up windows task manager, it takes forever and a day because this program is hogging the cpu time. When I press control/alt/delete, I want task manager to supersede every other app running and immediately become accessible. Is by any chance Vista better at this? I have a pokey single core processor, if I had a dual core processor, would it allow task manager to come up quicker when a program is hogging all the cpu time?


An HT or DC CPU can be a good band-aid, but the real problem is either resource-hogging apps, a poor-performing chipset (anything lesser than an 848, basically, as the P4 is sensitive to memory performance), or not enough RAM. Vista won't help. A new install, and use of a router(why use ZA if not directly connected?), a nice little AV client (AVG, Avast), and so on, should do some major good. I've experienced this behavior, but never on a PC I've set up, even PIII and slower Athlon XP boxes using modern software.

I haven't used Zone Alarm in ages, so don't know if it's a hog these days, still. An extreme example of a nasty hog would be the resident app for many HP AIOs, with an embedded Apache server and JRE in the software constantly writing logs to the HDD.


On Vista in general: with 2GB of RAM, it flies. It doesn't multitask as good as most Linux distros do, but pretty nice. However, trying to actually use it, I get the opposite of the frustration of using OS X: instead of not having all the options I want (I'm a KDE person), but nicely done forms; they are all there, but it takes many clicks and managing many modal windows to get to settings that could easily be incorporated into their parent windows (FI, the whole of setting fonts, colors, and so on for windows themselves).

Also, the security UI is bogus. The dialogs pop up too often, in the same place, and offer rapid visual cues (scrambled looking screen, then black, then dialog). Translation: it took me under five minutes to get down my Pavlonian training to just hit OK, type in my PW, and hit enter, without thinking about what I was doing. It's obvious it is a shoestring wrapper over their old security system (which isn't bad, but they need to really rework the UI, rather than adding a dialog box and saying it's better).

Now, sure, *n*xes don't do it perfectly, but they do it well from the perspective of the user. I'm either expecting a SU prompt, PW at the ready, or it catches me by surprise and I think for a second about what I did, even as an experienced user.

Under the hood, Vista is cool. But that only translates to the user experience as eye candy, decent searching, and quick loading apps. Maybe they'll fix it with SP1...we'll see. When pressed, MS can do a good job, and if they've learned well, they might pull out good changes to the UI as a whole in the first SP or two.



Mike Painter said:


> (Did XP get a similar reaction?) Yes it did.


Not in this world. The people complaining about XP just wanted their old DOS stuff to magically work. Win2k and XP (Win2k, nicely polished) were excellent from the start, worth upgrading to immediately, unless you used a lot of applications made for DOS and Windows 3.x (even many of those work, actually). Businesses were salivating for Windows 2000, only waited on XP because it came out before large deployments of 2000 were complete, and many expensive apps didn't officially support it yet...but, they're leary of Vista. Even people that like trying the cool new stuff are not as comfy with Vista as 2k/XP back several years ago. MS has, and still does, make some awesome software, but they dropped the ball this time on the OS, and need to work really hard on the service packs to make up for it.


----------



## Newuser01 (Jun 30, 2007)

Fallingwater said:


> I find it hard to believe Toshiba does not provide XP drivers. Are you positive?


Yep!! I have been through Toshiba site back and forth and again.

I even found a forum (which escapes me at this moment.) that were full of Toshiba lappy owners which was over 100 posts long and each and everyone of them are running XP with some of the features not working. In particular power management, dedicated buttons for the DVD players, intermittent wireless card troubles etc....

Now, at this juncture - I'm considering it (downgrade) since it (laptop) is useless to me. Just a matter of time with a couple of beer and xp disk in hand. Or may be I could just go with Ubuntu....

Now can all of you say "good luck and we are with you!"

Regards.


----------



## Hans (Jul 1, 2007)

Kiessling said:


> I expect a product like Vista to run. That would be the minimum requirement :sick2: and not even need discussion.



Yep. Ever since Windows 95 I'm following a simple rule: Don't install *any* Microsoft operating system until the bugs have been sorted out. That may take anything from one to three years. Sure, I always keep the system I'm using up to date and I really look after it, but I won't work as a beta tester for Bill Gates.

That's why I got my first Windows 95 two years after its introduction, Windows 98 was next in 2000, Windows 2000 in 2002. Last year I finally switched to XP, well after SP2 had come out.

Works for me, and I don't really need any new security features. A well-maintained system is safe enough. And if something goes really wrong, I just to a new install. Happened to me once in well over 10 years.

Hans


----------



## Hans (Jul 1, 2007)

eluminator said:


> I only install security updates. As far as I know, they never include "hardware" (driver) updates. I have rarely had a problem with security updates. <snip>
> As for the driver updates, (Microsoft calls them hardware updates), you are one of many that have had problems with them. <snip>
> I think it's a good idea to avoid the "hardware" updates unless you are having problems with the hardware.



Excellent advice. I've never had any problems with the security updates either, and I also *never* do hardware updates using Windows update.

Should I ever need or want a driver update, I get the drivers from the manufacturers website and install them when *I* want to, usually after making a fresh image of the harddrive just in case something goes wrong. Saved my butt a couple of times in the past.

Hans


----------



## eluminator (Jul 1, 2007)

Hans said:


> Should I ever need or want a driver update, I get the drivers from the manufacturers website and install them when *I* want to, usually after making a fresh image of the harddrive just in case something goes wrong. Saved my butt a couple of times in the past.
> 
> Hans



There was a hardware update for my Radeon 9250 card once. I thought I would be smart, so I visited the ATI site. Sure enough there was a new set of software. Damned video vendors like to give you more software than you need, and I couldn't figure it out, but I downloaded and installed what I thought was the right stuff.

But then I had trouble with the video, and I never had trouble before. One thing I like about the 9250 cards is XP has the driver so I never had to install anything. But in the interest of getting the latest and greatest, I installed it. Stupid mistake. After screwing around a while I discovered some Radeon thing in the Add/Remove programs. I clicked Remove, and my troubles were over. Never did figure out what the hell it was.

Lesson learned though, I now don't even look at the hardware updates.

And now that I think about it, Microsoft does put those hardware updates up there just to aggravate us


----------



## Sigman (Aug 15, 2007)

Merged 2 Vista threads and wanted to add this link about the selection of Windows XP over Vista & exclusion of wireless at the 2008 Olympics...


----------



## geepondy (Aug 16, 2007)

I keep my eye on the Dell website and notice that once Vista became available, Dell stopped offering WinXP on it's XPS line of computers. Now I see they have returned to offering it again.

As I posted previously, I recall a reluctance to switch from Win98 to XP. User opinions aside, I wonder if the facts are supporting an apparent reluctance to switch from XP to Vista as compared to Win98 to XP and to what degree in comparison?


----------



## James S (Aug 16, 2007)

My personal taste is perhaps well known, I dont use the thing myself and I am generally a bit cynical when people ask about it  But when it comes down to helping friends and the occasional programming gig, I do work on Windows and try not to shake my head too much 

Recently I helped my father in law spec out a brand new tricked out laptop. While certain tasks, like dvd encoding and whatnot were significantly faster than his ancient XP desktop machine, just generally navigating around in the UI was comparable, and in some places slower than his 4 year old dell. All that extra eye candy 

I think if you're buying a new machine you'll not want to go to the trouble to load the older OS on your machine. There are benefits to the new one. But I see absolutely no reason to try to install Vista on an older machine. You will run slower and gain little but frustration. It looks so much like XP, but lots of just regular daily use stuff is all re-arranged just enough to have you digging for things that you used to do without thinking.


----------



## KC2IXE (Aug 16, 2007)

James S said:


> ...snip...
> I think if you're buying a new machine you'll not want to go to the trouble to load the older OS on your machine. There are benefits to the new one. But I see absolutely no reason to try to install Vista on an older machine. You will run slower and gain little but frustration. It looks so much like XP, but lots of just regular daily use stuff is all re-arranged just enough to have you digging for things that you used to do without thinking.



Yeah - I think that about sums it up - I loaded Vista because I was buying a new box, could spec it out for Vista, and as a developer, I figure I had better make sure MY stuff works on Vista (as well as XP) before I send it out into the world, so end users don't grumble


----------

