BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 25d, 18h, 15m | CPU: 29% | MEM: 5639MB of 10904MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: I have only one criticism of Vista.        Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:21 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Tue Jun 26, 2007 12:13 am

Posts
229

Favourite OS
Windows 7 SP1
I have been running Windows Vista for over a year now, and everything is pretty much perfect. Sure, file operations are a tad slower than XP, but I have no major problems with it so far. Everything works. I've yet to experience a single BSOD.

This brings me to my single criticism of Vista. Honestly, Windows Vista does not feel any more different than Windows XP. Everything feels exactly the same. I know, some of you may challenge my opinion that it would have been slightly wiser for Microsoft to take some more bolder steps with Vista, but, given Windows Vista's relatively anemic feature set (which hardly wowed me) over XP, I keep wondering... Was Vista really necessary for us consumers at all? I spent $160 for an upgrade copy of Home Premium, and it feels just like Windows XP with a couple of features (like Windows Sidebar, Aero) tacked on.

This is not to say that Windows Vista is a bad operating system, in fact, it's just as stable as XP, but for an OS that received quite a bit of hype, I was expecting a little more for my money than just a mere "evolution" of XP.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: I have only one criticism of Vista.        Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:01 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:14 pm

Posts
6612

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Server 2012 R2
Yeh, I agree completely. I do think Vista is impressive, and better than XP. However, it's not enough to make me go and and upgrade XP. In all my cases, I've just waited till I need to upgrade the PC, so the XP OEM activation breaks, and I just get a Vista OEM copy.

_________________
BuildFeed - the ultimate collaborative NT build list - Windows Longhorn - a look at a defining Microsoft project


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:28 am 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am

Posts
12473

Location
Merseyside, United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
I like XP and Vista equally as much now since using both for a decent period of time. They both work great, but Vista somehow seems "smoother". I love the way the windows minimise and maximise etc, it seems nicer that way than XP's just disappearing and reappearing.

Vista has more potential than you think at the moment. It might do pretty much the same as XP now but think, in the future you're going to have to use it for DX10. Its API and core is completely rewritten for better optimisation. In general I think it runs faster for a lot of operations, especially logging on, but even so, I'm still not fussed whether I use XP or Vista on my pc/laptop since I'm equal with both now.

_________________
Image

BetaArchive Discord: https://discord.gg/epK3r6A


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:55 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat May 12, 2007 1:05 pm

Posts
5271

Location
The Collection Book

Favourite OS
Windows & Phone
Why not Vista on the desktop and XP on the laptop or a dual-boot with the desktop (so you can have both).

For a laptop i recommend the operating system what was delivered with it.

_________________
Image
http://www.thecollectionbook.info
Subscribe to our Image for updates and like us on Image.

Reading Mode only, PM's possible.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:58 am 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am

Posts
12473

Location
Merseyside, United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
DjRob wrote:
Why not Vista on the desktop and XP on the laptop or a dual-boot with the desktop (so you can have both).

For a laptop i recommend the operating system what was delivered with it.


Vista on a laptop is a no-go. Forget it. Vista NEVER runs properly on a laptop. They're just not designed for it. The CPU is slower, it has less memory, the FSB is slower and so is the hard disk. Always go for XP if you want to make the most of it. I was tempted to run Vista on this laptop until I discovered it would never run properly. This laptop came with XP Pro (deliberately) but it does have drivers for Vista.

_________________
Image

BetaArchive Discord: https://discord.gg/epK3r6A


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:07 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat May 12, 2007 1:05 pm

Posts
5271

Location
The Collection Book

Favourite OS
Windows & Phone
We use Vista on laptops, and it runs faster then XP on a desktop.

Even aero, but those laptops costs €2000 a piece.

_________________
Image
http://www.thecollectionbook.info
Subscribe to our Image for updates and like us on Image.

Reading Mode only, PM's possible.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:11 pm 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am

Posts
12473

Location
Merseyside, United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
DjRob wrote:
We use Vista on laptops, and it runs faster then XP on a desktop.

Even aero, but those laptops costs €2000 a piece.


At $2000 a piece I'd be worried if it couldn't run Vista but I'm talking about standard consumer type laptops, e.g. under $1000 as I doubt many people will pay any more for one.

My laptop will probably run Vista quite well but it will never be as good as on a desktop. What makes me laugh is laptops that come with a Celeron processor, 512MB RAM and on-board graphics and expect to run Vista.

_________________
Image

BetaArchive Discord: https://discord.gg/epK3r6A


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:36 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat May 12, 2007 1:05 pm

Posts
5271

Location
The Collection Book

Favourite OS
Windows & Phone
Oh well, sticking to XP is the best option then.

Our laptops come with 1.75GHz Dual Core, 2048MB Ram, 120GB 7200RPM drive, DVD burner, wifi, 256MB VRam (not shared with main ram)

But those laptops are loaded with software of toshiba wich we do not need (i unstalled them or disabled most of the information features, the people who use these laptops are just normal users, but we need them with Vista with Office 2003/2007 for school lessons (for people of 25+ for a training).

_________________
Image
http://www.thecollectionbook.info
Subscribe to our Image for updates and like us on Image.

Reading Mode only, PM's possible.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:57 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:32 pm

Posts
235

Location
New York

Favourite OS
Windows 7 Build 7600
Ive had vista since it came out and havent updated it...... you can probably guess why but its ran great. Ive only had one reinstall as i hate antivirus software. But all my computer has is a 2.8ghz dual core Intel Pentium V//V or a D, 1gb of ram.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:47 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:14 pm

Posts
6612

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Server 2012 R2
I think that Vista's largest issue in terms of older computers, is because of the way Microsoft have upped the requirements, but made it more optimised. Whereas with Windows XP, performance increased in a more linear manner. If you had a slightly faster PC, then XP would run slightly faster. However, Vista's performance is closer to exponential. If you have a decent PC, Vista runs OK. If you are slightly below that mark, Vista runs much slower. But in the same way, if you have a PC slightly better, Vista runs much better.

It all comes down to which has more effects on the PC, the requirements or the optimisations that are found in Vista. On a slower PC, the requirements have much more of a demand, but on a faster PC, where the requirements are satisfied, the optimisations just make it so much faster compared to XP. And maybe that's the problem here. Some people are using PCs that are slightly below the average spec, and their PCs are hurt by the requirements much more than with a PC a similar distance from that average for XP.

That's just my take on why some people find Vista awful and others find it much faster than XP.

It surprised me to find that with Vista, my dad's laptop (a 1.5GHz Celeron M) could not decode Video as well as my EeePC which has XP. I think this really highlights my point.

_________________
BuildFeed - the ultimate collaborative NT build list - Windows Longhorn - a look at a defining Microsoft project


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:55 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:16 am

Posts
725

Location
TeXaS

Favourite OS
Windows Vista Beta 1 (6.0.5112)
hounsell wrote:
I think that Vista's largest issue in terms of older computers, is because of the way Microsoft have upped the requirements, but made it more optimised. Whereas with Windows XP, performance increased in a more linear manner. If you had a slightly faster PC, then XP would run slightly faster. However, Vista's performance is closer to exponential. If you have a decent PC, Vista runs OK. If you are slightly below that mark, Vista runs much slower. But in the same way, if you have a PC slightly better, Vista runs much better.

It all comes down to which has more effects on the PC, the requirements or the optimisations that are found in Vista. On a slower PC, the requirements have much more of a demand, but on a faster PC, where the requirements are satisfied, the optimisations just make it so much faster compared to XP. And maybe that's the problem here. Some people are using PCs that are slightly below the average spec, and their PCs are hurt by the requirements much more than with a PC a similar distance from that average for XP.

That's just my take on why some people find Vista awful and others find it much faster than XP.

It surprised me to find that with Vista, my dad's laptop (a 1.5GHz Celeron M) could not decode Video as well as my EeePC which has XP. I think this really highlights my point.


Let's also not forget CPU architecture. It's not solely about the clock frequency of the processor, but also the processor design. Compare Vista on a PIII (God forbid) or even the fastest P4 is vs. the extra instruction sets found on newer processors like the Intel Core and Core 2 duo (and AMD equivalents). Vista was designed to take advantage of new processor technology. Running Windows 2000 or XP on those same processors will prove fast, but regardless, it doesn't take FULL advantage of that technology, since it wasn't written on those architectures. Just keep in mind that speed isn't everything...


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:28 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Vista's fine on a cheap laptop even - I have a £440 Dell and it's fine with Vista x64, Aero and games like NFS Carbon (I don't play the absolute latest games on there, mainly because of the smallish hard drive, but slightly older ones are fine with good graphics settings) - maybe not on Celerons with 512 MB memory, but when you can get a 2 GHz C2D with 2 GB and a real graphics card for that price I don't see why anyone would buy a Celeron :P

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:34 am 
Reply with quote
I did a tweak to Vista Ultimate by switching the original setup.dll with a "hacked" one, and made it run on 256mb. That was funny. It ran so slow, it was a shame. Guess I should've tried Vista Home Basic b4 I went with the mega!!! :D Uninstalled it, FAST...So I'm officially sticking with XP for this PC.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:18 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:57 am

Posts
400
Andy wrote:
Vista on a laptop is a no-go. Forget it. Vista NEVER runs properly on a laptop. They're just not designed for it. The CPU is slower, it has less memory, the FSB is slower and so is the hard disk. Always go for XP if you want to make the most of it. I was tempted to run Vista on this laptop until I discovered it would never run properly. This laptop came with XP Pro (deliberately) but it does have drivers for Vista.
Gosh, I couldn't agree with you any more Andy. So far, my sister, and friend and their mom has Vista on their new PCs (one is a Gateway, the other two are Dells), and they just don't feel fast enough. It's as if the laptops were used already, and then sold at retail price. Hell, my PowerBook G3 can run Mac OS 9 faster than Vista! Well, that may be stretching it, but I just don't want Vista on a laptop when I buy it.

_________________
Since January 2005, I've been in the Operating Systems Prototype Community. I've enjoyed learning more these past four years about the development of the Windows and Macintosh operating systems, as well as learning of new user-based projects that optimize system performance.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:29 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat May 12, 2007 1:05 pm

Posts
5271

Location
The Collection Book

Favourite OS
Windows & Phone
With most laptops you get an OEM Recover CD/DVD, and normally it comes with Vista (Business mostly) and XP Professional.

_________________
Image
http://www.thecollectionbook.info
Subscribe to our Image for updates and like us on Image.

Reading Mode only, PM's possible.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:36 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:14 pm

Posts
6612

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Server 2012 R2
I'd never recommend using pre-loaded OEM software to get an idea of speed.

When my dad's laptop arrived with a pre-installed Vista Home Premium, I simply formatted it straight away. OEMs are more concerned with getting money from preloading crappy inefficient software onto PCs than the usability of a PC.

_________________
BuildFeed - the ultimate collaborative NT build list - Windows Longhorn - a look at a defining Microsoft project


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:41 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:58 pm

Posts
39
Indeed... My grandma got an Amilo about 6 months ago (Vista Home Premium preinstalled), and the Application performance is just... bad. There's so much preinstalled crap on it, trials, adware and other crap.

The problem is that you can't even use a System Builder DVD to reinstall it properly. x.x


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:39 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:12 am

Posts
1121

Location
Brisbane, Queensland

Favourite OS
OS/2 Wrp 3.0
I found vista extremely frustrating. I used it for a while, largely to see what it does, and because the rellies will soon be using it.

Things are changed from the previous version, purely for change's sake. We see that the icon for unplugging USB devices is no longer the arrow thing but some weird computer device.

There are lots of other wonky things, like changing drive letters unexpectedly. Lots of things have not been fixed up from previous NT versions (like being able to set the install volume letter at install time (you can do this in OS/2).

I don't think it's really eco-friendly either! In these days when we are compliplating global warming, it really is a bit blaisé to demand so much power when we are told to cut power! OS/2 is a long way ahead of the game here!

I suppose we have to Windows 7 or something for something decent!


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:56 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat May 12, 2007 1:05 pm

Posts
5271

Location
The Collection Book

Favourite OS
Windows & Phone
os2fan2 wrote:
Things are changed from the previous version, purely for change's sake. We see that the icon for unplugging USB devices is no longer the arrow thing but some weird computer device.


That icon is just a USB memorystick.

_________________
Image
http://www.thecollectionbook.info
Subscribe to our Image for updates and like us on Image.

Reading Mode only, PM's possible.


Top  Profile  WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS