Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > Vista problems 64 bit and 32 bit stability

Reply
Thread Tools

Vista problems 64 bit and 32 bit stability

 
 
Brandon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2008
This is part suggestion, part discussion, part complaint ... (a rant?)

Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit

I've been using Vista for some months now and I have to say I am deeply
unhappy with the OS. I have it running on a Thinkpad T61 (2GHz x 2, 800 MHz
FSB), 4GB RAM, 160 5400 SATA, nVidia NVS140m, etc.

In my first outing I tried Vista 64bit so I could fully utilise all 4GB of
RAM. Yes, while the RAM is available my feeling was that the performance of
the laptop was below that of my previous Acer TM803 with 2GB with XP.

Initially I had issues because of a known broadcast issue with DHCP and
older routers - I could not get Wireless working with DHCP on my Linksys ADSL
router. I did find the registry resolve for this but elected in the mean
time to stop using DHCP as it was simpler (especially when rebuilding, etc).
I would just hate to be a typical consumer user trying to deal with this O/S.
I believe it would be unworkable for users with no technical background.

Apart from the perception of general slow performance I felt beset by issues
where apps., services, browsers, etc, simply stopped responding and had to be
killed off, or worse, the computer had to be restarted.

In terms of restarting the computer, that wasn't pretty either as more often
than not it would fail to shut down properly, and then take an absolute age
to start up again. I've also had issues where the computer wouldn't suspend
or hibernate properly leading me to leave it on full-power mode most of the
time (a laptop ...).

I also seemed to have a lot of problems with dropping wireless connection
that I hadn't previously experienced on Windows XP, and didn't experience
when I later retried XP on this system.

So; it was problems compounded with problems and more problems, and I'm
LIVID at the amount of time I've wasted in front of what should have been a
blisteringly fast laptop. It, along with Vista, and Office 2007, where not a
trivial investment.

Summary:

* Well, it's unstable. Full stop. It might be the apps., but surely
backward compatability is a watchword when rolling out an o/s?

* Perhaps there are driver issues too; but aren't all of the drivers for
64bit certified by Microsoft?

* Superfetch seems to be an issue. It certainly cannot learn anything
useful about my usage patterns if the PC is so unstable I have to keep
rebooting it. I actually felt that 64 bit Vista provided a better user
experience when SuperFetch was disabled. Is part of the problem here that
it's caching native 64bit and WOW libraries on startup thus taking an age to
get going and consuming almost 2GB for cache before I've actually had a
chance to do anything with the computer? [If the kernel worked properly
there probably won't be any need for ReadyBoost.]

* UAC seems to be a big problem for existing applications.

* There seems to be issues in IE where the browser hangs on when it's
waiting on something (eg: network response or content rendering or something).

Windows Vista Ultimate 32 bit

Having failed miserably with 64 bit I went back to 32 bit. This required
that I gave away 1GB of RAM but appeared otherwise to be a little more
stable. I still have problems with:

* Some applications failing to start/respond.

* Shutdown/suspend/hibernate issues.

There's also some silly bugs in some of the apps. for example:

* Attemping to burn a AVI file to DVD with Windows DVD maker; gets to 79.9%
and then just sits forever with no progress, no discernable error, etc. Who
tested this stuff?

* If I try to use Windows Backup to backup to a disk which I previously used
for a backup and then reformatted (same name), it still insists there are
files backed up on the drive ...

In general, my experience with Vista seems to be summarized by
wait-wait-retry-kill-retry-reboot-power-off-restart-wait-wait.

WHAT DO I WANT:

* I spent a lot of money on the hardware and software. The combination DOES
NOT LIVE UP TO THE PROMISE. I want a working FAST and STABLE system.

* I want some level of granular control over the operation of the ReadyBoost
and SuperFetch features as well as an easy way to identify and stop
components in the system I don't need (which properly explains them, what
they do and what the impact is of turning them off).

* There are virtually no 64 bit applications for 64 bit Vista. Why can't
you just allow 32 bit Vista to access > 4GB on systems that allow this? I've
read lot's of forums about PAE/3GB/36bit/40bit addressing etc. This would
allow for a leaner O/S which could still access larger amounts of RAM though
limiting individual process address spaces; I think most people wouldn't have
a problem with that. Works in Windows 32bit Servers - why not for Vista?

RIGHT NOW:

I'm trying out Linux distributions to see which ones come with the best h/w
support for my T61. If MicroSoft can't get a handle on Vista then I will be
an ex-customer.







----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com....64bit.general
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bobby Johnson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2008
I seriously doubt you will be happy with Linux if you can't
cope with Windows!


Brandon wrote:
> This is part suggestion, part discussion, part complaint ... (a rant?)
>
> Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit
>
> I've been using Vista for some months now and I have to say I am deeply
> unhappy with the OS. I have it running on a Thinkpad T61 (2GHz x 2, 800 MHz
> FSB), 4GB RAM, 160 5400 SATA, nVidia NVS140m, etc.
>
> In my first outing I tried Vista 64bit so I could fully utilise all 4GB of
> RAM. Yes, while the RAM is available my feeling was that the performance of
> the laptop was below that of my previous Acer TM803 with 2GB with XP.
>
> Initially I had issues because of a known broadcast issue with DHCP and
> older routers - I could not get Wireless working with DHCP on my Linksys ADSL
> router. I did find the registry resolve for this but elected in the mean
> time to stop using DHCP as it was simpler (especially when rebuilding, etc).
> I would just hate to be a typical consumer user trying to deal with this O/S.
> I believe it would be unworkable for users with no technical background.
>
> Apart from the perception of general slow performance I felt beset by issues
> where apps., services, browsers, etc, simply stopped responding and had to be
> killed off, or worse, the computer had to be restarted.
>
> In terms of restarting the computer, that wasn't pretty either as more often
> than not it would fail to shut down properly, and then take an absolute age
> to start up again. I've also had issues where the computer wouldn't suspend
> or hibernate properly leading me to leave it on full-power mode most of the
> time (a laptop ...).
>
> I also seemed to have a lot of problems with dropping wireless connection
> that I hadn't previously experienced on Windows XP, and didn't experience
> when I later retried XP on this system.
>
> So; it was problems compounded with problems and more problems, and I'm
> LIVID at the amount of time I've wasted in front of what should have been a
> blisteringly fast laptop. It, along with Vista, and Office 2007, where not a
> trivial investment.
>
> Summary:
>
> * Well, it's unstable. Full stop. It might be the apps., but surely
> backward compatability is a watchword when rolling out an o/s?
>
> * Perhaps there are driver issues too; but aren't all of the drivers for
> 64bit certified by Microsoft?
>
> * Superfetch seems to be an issue. It certainly cannot learn anything
> useful about my usage patterns if the PC is so unstable I have to keep
> rebooting it. I actually felt that 64 bit Vista provided a better user
> experience when SuperFetch was disabled. Is part of the problem here that
> it's caching native 64bit and WOW libraries on startup thus taking an age to
> get going and consuming almost 2GB for cache before I've actually had a
> chance to do anything with the computer? [If the kernel worked properly
> there probably won't be any need for ReadyBoost.]
>
> * UAC seems to be a big problem for existing applications.
>
> * There seems to be issues in IE where the browser hangs on when it's
> waiting on something (eg: network response or content rendering or something).
>
> Windows Vista Ultimate 32 bit
>
> Having failed miserably with 64 bit I went back to 32 bit. This required
> that I gave away 1GB of RAM but appeared otherwise to be a little more
> stable. I still have problems with:
>
> * Some applications failing to start/respond.
>
> * Shutdown/suspend/hibernate issues.
>
> There's also some silly bugs in some of the apps. for example:
>
> * Attemping to burn a AVI file to DVD with Windows DVD maker; gets to 79.9%
> and then just sits forever with no progress, no discernable error, etc. Who
> tested this stuff?
>
> * If I try to use Windows Backup to backup to a disk which I previously used
> for a backup and then reformatted (same name), it still insists there are
> files backed up on the drive ...
>
> In general, my experience with Vista seems to be summarized by
> wait-wait-retry-kill-retry-reboot-power-off-restart-wait-wait.
>
> WHAT DO I WANT:
>
> * I spent a lot of money on the hardware and software. The combination DOES
> NOT LIVE UP TO THE PROMISE. I want a working FAST and STABLE system.
>
> * I want some level of granular control over the operation of the ReadyBoost
> and SuperFetch features as well as an easy way to identify and stop
> components in the system I don't need (which properly explains them, what
> they do and what the impact is of turning them off).
>
> * There are virtually no 64 bit applications for 64 bit Vista. Why can't
> you just allow 32 bit Vista to access > 4GB on systems that allow this? I've
> read lot's of forums about PAE/3GB/36bit/40bit addressing etc. This would
> allow for a leaner O/S which could still access larger amounts of RAM though
> limiting individual process address spaces; I think most people wouldn't have
> a problem with that. Works in Windows 32bit Servers - why not for Vista?
>
> RIGHT NOW:
>
> I'm trying out Linux distributions to see which ones come with the best h/w
> support for my T61. If MicroSoft can't get a handle on Vista then I will be
> an ex-customer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------
> This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
> suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
> Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
> link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
> click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>
> http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com....64bit.general

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
The Sizzler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2008
I absolutely disagree!! This is another ignorant statement by a moron.

Pack your computer back in the box it came in and return it for a refund
since you obviuosly aren't smart enough to figure out to get it to work!



"Brandon" wrote:

> This is part suggestion, part discussion, part complaint ... (a rant?)
>
> Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit
>
> I've been using Vista for some months now and I have to say I am deeply
> unhappy with the OS. I have it running on a Thinkpad T61 (2GHz x 2, 800 MHz
> FSB), 4GB RAM, 160 5400 SATA, nVidia NVS140m, etc.
>
> In my first outing I tried Vista 64bit so I could fully utilise all 4GB of
> RAM. Yes, while the RAM is available my feeling was that the performance of
> the laptop was below that of my previous Acer TM803 with 2GB with XP.
>
> Initially I had issues because of a known broadcast issue with DHCP and
> older routers - I could not get Wireless working with DHCP on my Linksys ADSL
> router. I did find the registry resolve for this but elected in the mean
> time to stop using DHCP as it was simpler (especially when rebuilding, etc).
> I would just hate to be a typical consumer user trying to deal with this O/S.
> I believe it would be unworkable for users with no technical background.
>
> Apart from the perception of general slow performance I felt beset by issues
> where apps., services, browsers, etc, simply stopped responding and had to be
> killed off, or worse, the computer had to be restarted.
>
> In terms of restarting the computer, that wasn't pretty either as more often
> than not it would fail to shut down properly, and then take an absolute age
> to start up again. I've also had issues where the computer wouldn't suspend
> or hibernate properly leading me to leave it on full-power mode most of the
> time (a laptop ...).
>
> I also seemed to have a lot of problems with dropping wireless connection
> that I hadn't previously experienced on Windows XP, and didn't experience
> when I later retried XP on this system.
>
> So; it was problems compounded with problems and more problems, and I'm
> LIVID at the amount of time I've wasted in front of what should have been a
> blisteringly fast laptop. It, along with Vista, and Office 2007, where not a
> trivial investment.
>
> Summary:
>
> * Well, it's unstable. Full stop. It might be the apps., but surely
> backward compatability is a watchword when rolling out an o/s?
>
> * Perhaps there are driver issues too; but aren't all of the drivers for
> 64bit certified by Microsoft?
>
> * Superfetch seems to be an issue. It certainly cannot learn anything
> useful about my usage patterns if the PC is so unstable I have to keep
> rebooting it. I actually felt that 64 bit Vista provided a better user
> experience when SuperFetch was disabled. Is part of the problem here that
> it's caching native 64bit and WOW libraries on startup thus taking an age to
> get going and consuming almost 2GB for cache before I've actually had a
> chance to do anything with the computer? [If the kernel worked properly
> there probably won't be any need for ReadyBoost.]
>
> * UAC seems to be a big problem for existing applications.
>
> * There seems to be issues in IE where the browser hangs on when it's
> waiting on something (eg: network response or content rendering or something).
>
> Windows Vista Ultimate 32 bit
>
> Having failed miserably with 64 bit I went back to 32 bit. This required
> that I gave away 1GB of RAM but appeared otherwise to be a little more
> stable. I still have problems with:
>
> * Some applications failing to start/respond.
>
> * Shutdown/suspend/hibernate issues.
>
> There's also some silly bugs in some of the apps. for example:
>
> * Attemping to burn a AVI file to DVD with Windows DVD maker; gets to 79.9%
> and then just sits forever with no progress, no discernable error, etc. Who
> tested this stuff?
>
> * If I try to use Windows Backup to backup to a disk which I previously used
> for a backup and then reformatted (same name), it still insists there are
> files backed up on the drive ...
>
> In general, my experience with Vista seems to be summarized by
> wait-wait-retry-kill-retry-reboot-power-off-restart-wait-wait.
>
> WHAT DO I WANT:
>
> * I spent a lot of money on the hardware and software. The combination DOES
> NOT LIVE UP TO THE PROMISE. I want a working FAST and STABLE system.
>
> * I want some level of granular control over the operation of the ReadyBoost
> and SuperFetch features as well as an easy way to identify and stop
> components in the system I don't need (which properly explains them, what
> they do and what the impact is of turning them off).
>
> * There are virtually no 64 bit applications for 64 bit Vista. Why can't
> you just allow 32 bit Vista to access > 4GB on systems that allow this? I've
> read lot's of forums about PAE/3GB/36bit/40bit addressing etc. This would
> allow for a leaner O/S which could still access larger amounts of RAM though
> limiting individual process address spaces; I think most people wouldn't have
> a problem with that. Works in Windows 32bit Servers - why not for Vista?
>
> RIGHT NOW:
>
> I'm trying out Linux distributions to see which ones come with the best h/w
> support for my T61. If MicroSoft can't get a handle on Vista then I will be
> an ex-customer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------
> This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
> suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
> Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
> link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
> click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>
> http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com....64bit.general

 
Reply With Quote
 
Brandon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2008
Not sure whether your agreement matters or not - the problems are statements
of fact.

Its a consumer o/s, its supposed to just work, not be figured out. If I'm
going to figure out something, I'll start with something that's known to be
stable. Only thing I'll be using Vista for right now is in VMWare to keep
running some necessary MS stuff until I'm sure I can put it in the bin.

Everything else I could possibly want can be found on Lunix, much of it for
free.

"The Sizzler" wrote:

> I absolutely disagree!! This is another ignorant statement by a moron.
>
> Pack your computer back in the box it came in and return it for a refund
> since you obviuosly aren't smart enough to figure out to get it to work!
>
>
>
> "Brandon" wrote:
>
> > This is part suggestion, part discussion, part complaint ... (a rant?)
> >
> > Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit
> >
> > I've been using Vista for some months now and I have to say I am deeply
> > unhappy with the OS. I have it running on a Thinkpad T61 (2GHz x 2, 800 MHz
> > FSB), 4GB RAM, 160 5400 SATA, nVidia NVS140m, etc.
> >
> > In my first outing I tried Vista 64bit so I could fully utilise all 4GB of
> > RAM. Yes, while the RAM is available my feeling was that the performance of
> > the laptop was below that of my previous Acer TM803 with 2GB with XP.
> >
> > Initially I had issues because of a known broadcast issue with DHCP and
> > older routers - I could not get Wireless working with DHCP on my Linksys ADSL
> > router. I did find the registry resolve for this but elected in the mean
> > time to stop using DHCP as it was simpler (especially when rebuilding, etc).
> > I would just hate to be a typical consumer user trying to deal with this O/S.
> > I believe it would be unworkable for users with no technical background.
> >
> > Apart from the perception of general slow performance I felt beset by issues
> > where apps., services, browsers, etc, simply stopped responding and had to be
> > killed off, or worse, the computer had to be restarted.
> >
> > In terms of restarting the computer, that wasn't pretty either as more often
> > than not it would fail to shut down properly, and then take an absolute age
> > to start up again. I've also had issues where the computer wouldn't suspend
> > or hibernate properly leading me to leave it on full-power mode most of the
> > time (a laptop ...).
> >
> > I also seemed to have a lot of problems with dropping wireless connection
> > that I hadn't previously experienced on Windows XP, and didn't experience
> > when I later retried XP on this system.
> >
> > So; it was problems compounded with problems and more problems, and I'm
> > LIVID at the amount of time I've wasted in front of what should have been a
> > blisteringly fast laptop. It, along with Vista, and Office 2007, where not a
> > trivial investment.
> >
> > Summary:
> >
> > * Well, it's unstable. Full stop. It might be the apps., but surely
> > backward compatability is a watchword when rolling out an o/s?
> >
> > * Perhaps there are driver issues too; but aren't all of the drivers for
> > 64bit certified by Microsoft?
> >
> > * Superfetch seems to be an issue. It certainly cannot learn anything
> > useful about my usage patterns if the PC is so unstable I have to keep
> > rebooting it. I actually felt that 64 bit Vista provided a better user
> > experience when SuperFetch was disabled. Is part of the problem here that
> > it's caching native 64bit and WOW libraries on startup thus taking an age to
> > get going and consuming almost 2GB for cache before I've actually had a
> > chance to do anything with the computer? [If the kernel worked properly
> > there probably won't be any need for ReadyBoost.]
> >
> > * UAC seems to be a big problem for existing applications.
> >
> > * There seems to be issues in IE where the browser hangs on when it's
> > waiting on something (eg: network response or content rendering or something).
> >
> > Windows Vista Ultimate 32 bit
> >
> > Having failed miserably with 64 bit I went back to 32 bit. This required
> > that I gave away 1GB of RAM but appeared otherwise to be a little more
> > stable. I still have problems with:
> >
> > * Some applications failing to start/respond.
> >
> > * Shutdown/suspend/hibernate issues.
> >
> > There's also some silly bugs in some of the apps. for example:
> >
> > * Attemping to burn a AVI file to DVD with Windows DVD maker; gets to 79.9%
> > and then just sits forever with no progress, no discernable error, etc. Who
> > tested this stuff?
> >
> > * If I try to use Windows Backup to backup to a disk which I previously used
> > for a backup and then reformatted (same name), it still insists there are
> > files backed up on the drive ...
> >
> > In general, my experience with Vista seems to be summarized by
> > wait-wait-retry-kill-retry-reboot-power-off-restart-wait-wait.
> >
> > WHAT DO I WANT:
> >
> > * I spent a lot of money on the hardware and software. The combination DOES
> > NOT LIVE UP TO THE PROMISE. I want a working FAST and STABLE system.
> >
> > * I want some level of granular control over the operation of the ReadyBoost
> > and SuperFetch features as well as an easy way to identify and stop
> > components in the system I don't need (which properly explains them, what
> > they do and what the impact is of turning them off).
> >
> > * There are virtually no 64 bit applications for 64 bit Vista. Why can't
> > you just allow 32 bit Vista to access > 4GB on systems that allow this? I've
> > read lot's of forums about PAE/3GB/36bit/40bit addressing etc. This would
> > allow for a leaner O/S which could still access larger amounts of RAM though
> > limiting individual process address spaces; I think most people wouldn't have
> > a problem with that. Works in Windows 32bit Servers - why not for Vista?
> >
> > RIGHT NOW:
> >
> > I'm trying out Linux distributions to see which ones come with the best h/w
> > support for my T61. If MicroSoft can't get a handle on Vista then I will be
> > an ex-customer.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------
> > This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
> > suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
> > Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
> > link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
> > click "I Agree" in the message pane.
> >
> > http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com....64bit.general

 
Reply With Quote
 
Colin Barnhorst
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2008
If you are going to use Linux anyway, then I don't understand why you are
bothering to post all this stuff here. It all sounds like sour grapes to
me.

"Brandon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Not sure whether your agreement matters or not - the problems are
> statements
> of fact.
>
> Its a consumer o/s, its supposed to just work, not be figured out. If I'm
> going to figure out something, I'll start with something that's known to
> be
> stable. Only thing I'll be using Vista for right now is in VMWare to keep
> running some necessary MS stuff until I'm sure I can put it in the bin.
>
> Everything else I could possibly want can be found on Lunix, much of it
> for
> free.
>
> "The Sizzler" wrote:
>
>> I absolutely disagree!! This is another ignorant statement by a moron.
>>
>> Pack your computer back in the box it came in and return it for a refund
>> since you obviuosly aren't smart enough to figure out to get it to work!
>>
>>
>>
>> "Brandon" wrote:
>>
>> > This is part suggestion, part discussion, part complaint ... (a rant?)
>> >
>> > Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit
>> >
>> > I've been using Vista for some months now and I have to say I am deeply
>> > unhappy with the OS. I have it running on a Thinkpad T61 (2GHz x 2,
>> > 800 MHz
>> > FSB), 4GB RAM, 160 5400 SATA, nVidia NVS140m, etc.
>> >
>> > In my first outing I tried Vista 64bit so I could fully utilise all 4GB
>> > of
>> > RAM. Yes, while the RAM is available my feeling was that the
>> > performance of
>> > the laptop was below that of my previous Acer TM803 with 2GB with XP.
>> >
>> > Initially I had issues because of a known broadcast issue with DHCP and
>> > older routers - I could not get Wireless working with DHCP on my
>> > Linksys ADSL
>> > router. I did find the registry resolve for this but elected in the
>> > mean
>> > time to stop using DHCP as it was simpler (especially when rebuilding,
>> > etc).
>> > I would just hate to be a typical consumer user trying to deal with
>> > this O/S.
>> > I believe it would be unworkable for users with no technical
>> > background.
>> >
>> > Apart from the perception of general slow performance I felt beset by
>> > issues
>> > where apps., services, browsers, etc, simply stopped responding and had
>> > to be
>> > killed off, or worse, the computer had to be restarted.
>> >
>> > In terms of restarting the computer, that wasn't pretty either as more
>> > often
>> > than not it would fail to shut down properly, and then take an absolute
>> > age
>> > to start up again. I've also had issues where the computer wouldn't
>> > suspend
>> > or hibernate properly leading me to leave it on full-power mode most of
>> > the
>> > time (a laptop ...).
>> >
>> > I also seemed to have a lot of problems with dropping wireless
>> > connection
>> > that I hadn't previously experienced on Windows XP, and didn't
>> > experience
>> > when I later retried XP on this system.
>> >
>> > So; it was problems compounded with problems and more problems, and I'm
>> > LIVID at the amount of time I've wasted in front of what should have
>> > been a
>> > blisteringly fast laptop. It, along with Vista, and Office 2007, where
>> > not a
>> > trivial investment.
>> >
>> > Summary:
>> >
>> > * Well, it's unstable. Full stop. It might be the apps., but surely
>> > backward compatability is a watchword when rolling out an o/s?
>> >
>> > * Perhaps there are driver issues too; but aren't all of the drivers
>> > for
>> > 64bit certified by Microsoft?
>> >
>> > * Superfetch seems to be an issue. It certainly cannot learn anything
>> > useful about my usage patterns if the PC is so unstable I have to keep
>> > rebooting it. I actually felt that 64 bit Vista provided a better user
>> > experience when SuperFetch was disabled. Is part of the problem here
>> > that
>> > it's caching native 64bit and WOW libraries on startup thus taking an
>> > age to
>> > get going and consuming almost 2GB for cache before I've actually had a
>> > chance to do anything with the computer? [If the kernel worked
>> > properly
>> > there probably won't be any need for ReadyBoost.]
>> >
>> > * UAC seems to be a big problem for existing applications.
>> >
>> > * There seems to be issues in IE where the browser hangs on when it's
>> > waiting on something (eg: network response or content rendering or
>> > something).
>> >
>> > Windows Vista Ultimate 32 bit
>> >
>> > Having failed miserably with 64 bit I went back to 32 bit. This
>> > required
>> > that I gave away 1GB of RAM but appeared otherwise to be a little more
>> > stable. I still have problems with:
>> >
>> > * Some applications failing to start/respond.
>> >
>> > * Shutdown/suspend/hibernate issues.
>> >
>> > There's also some silly bugs in some of the apps. for example:
>> >
>> > * Attemping to burn a AVI file to DVD with Windows DVD maker; gets to
>> > 79.9%
>> > and then just sits forever with no progress, no discernable error, etc.
>> > Who
>> > tested this stuff?
>> >
>> > * If I try to use Windows Backup to backup to a disk which I previously
>> > used
>> > for a backup and then reformatted (same name), it still insists there
>> > are
>> > files backed up on the drive ...
>> >
>> > In general, my experience with Vista seems to be summarized by
>> > wait-wait-retry-kill-retry-reboot-power-off-restart-wait-wait.
>> >
>> > WHAT DO I WANT:
>> >
>> > * I spent a lot of money on the hardware and software. The combination
>> > DOES
>> > NOT LIVE UP TO THE PROMISE. I want a working FAST and STABLE system.
>> >
>> > * I want some level of granular control over the operation of the
>> > ReadyBoost
>> > and SuperFetch features as well as an easy way to identify and stop
>> > components in the system I don't need (which properly explains them,
>> > what
>> > they do and what the impact is of turning them off).
>> >
>> > * There are virtually no 64 bit applications for 64 bit Vista. Why
>> > can't
>> > you just allow 32 bit Vista to access > 4GB on systems that allow this?
>> > I've
>> > read lot's of forums about PAE/3GB/36bit/40bit addressing etc. This
>> > would
>> > allow for a leaner O/S which could still access larger amounts of RAM
>> > though
>> > limiting individual process address spaces; I think most people
>> > wouldn't have
>> > a problem with that. Works in Windows 32bit Servers - why not for
>> > Vista?
>> >
>> > RIGHT NOW:
>> >
>> > I'm trying out Linux distributions to see which ones come with the best
>> > h/w
>> > support for my T61. If MicroSoft can't get a handle on Vista then I
>> > will be
>> > an ex-customer.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----------------
>> > This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
>> > suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the
>> > "I
>> > Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow
>> > this
>> > link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and
>> > then
>> > click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>> >
>> > http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com....64bit.general


 
Reply With Quote
 
XS11E
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2008
The Sizzler <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I absolutely disagree!! This is another ignorant statement by a
> moron.
>
> Pack your computer back in the box it came in and return it for a
> refund since you obviuosly aren't smart enough to figure out to
> get it to work!


Is Miss Perspicacia Tick back among us? If so, welcome, we've missed
you. If not you could be in big trouble I think she copyrighted your
last sentence! <G>



--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gary J. DIkkema
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2008
Sounds like a TROLL to me...



"Colin Barnhorst" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> If you are going to use Linux anyway, then I don't understand why you are
> bothering to post all this stuff here. It all sounds like sour grapes to
> me.
>
> "Brandon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Not sure whether your agreement matters or not - the problems are
>> statements
>> of fact.
>>
>> Its a consumer o/s, its supposed to just work, not be figured out. If
>> I'm
>> going to figure out something, I'll start with something that's known to
>> be
>> stable. Only thing I'll be using Vista for right now is in VMWare to
>> keep
>> running some necessary MS stuff until I'm sure I can put it in the bin.
>>
>> Everything else I could possibly want can be found on Lunix, much of it
>> for
>> free.
>>
>> "The Sizzler" wrote:
>>
>>> I absolutely disagree!! This is another ignorant statement by a moron.
>>>
>>> Pack your computer back in the box it came in and return it for a refund
>>> since you obviuosly aren't smart enough to figure out to get it to work!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Brandon" wrote:
>>>
>>> > This is part suggestion, part discussion, part complaint ... (a rant?)
>>> >
>>> > Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit
>>> >
>>> > I've been using Vista for some months now and I have to say I am
>>> > deeply
>>> > unhappy with the OS. I have it running on a Thinkpad T61 (2GHz x 2,
>>> > 800 MHz
>>> > FSB), 4GB RAM, 160 5400 SATA, nVidia NVS140m, etc.
>>> >
>>> > In my first outing I tried Vista 64bit so I could fully utilise all
>>> > 4GB of
>>> > RAM. Yes, while the RAM is available my feeling was that the
>>> > performance of
>>> > the laptop was below that of my previous Acer TM803 with 2GB with XP.
>>> >
>>> > Initially I had issues because of a known broadcast issue with DHCP
>>> > and
>>> > older routers - I could not get Wireless working with DHCP on my
>>> > Linksys ADSL
>>> > router. I did find the registry resolve for this but elected in the
>>> > mean
>>> > time to stop using DHCP as it was simpler (especially when rebuilding,
>>> > etc).
>>> > I would just hate to be a typical consumer user trying to deal with
>>> > this O/S.
>>> > I believe it would be unworkable for users with no technical
>>> > background.
>>> >
>>> > Apart from the perception of general slow performance I felt beset by
>>> > issues
>>> > where apps., services, browsers, etc, simply stopped responding and
>>> > had to be
>>> > killed off, or worse, the computer had to be restarted.
>>> >
>>> > In terms of restarting the computer, that wasn't pretty either as more
>>> > often
>>> > than not it would fail to shut down properly, and then take an
>>> > absolute age
>>> > to start up again. I've also had issues where the computer wouldn't
>>> > suspend
>>> > or hibernate properly leading me to leave it on full-power mode most
>>> > of the
>>> > time (a laptop ...).
>>> >
>>> > I also seemed to have a lot of problems with dropping wireless
>>> > connection
>>> > that I hadn't previously experienced on Windows XP, and didn't
>>> > experience
>>> > when I later retried XP on this system.
>>> >
>>> > So; it was problems compounded with problems and more problems, and
>>> > I'm
>>> > LIVID at the amount of time I've wasted in front of what should have
>>> > been a
>>> > blisteringly fast laptop. It, along with Vista, and Office 2007,
>>> > where not a
>>> > trivial investment.
>>> >
>>> > Summary:
>>> >
>>> > * Well, it's unstable. Full stop. It might be the apps., but surely
>>> > backward compatability is a watchword when rolling out an o/s?
>>> >
>>> > * Perhaps there are driver issues too; but aren't all of the drivers
>>> > for
>>> > 64bit certified by Microsoft?
>>> >
>>> > * Superfetch seems to be an issue. It certainly cannot learn anything
>>> > useful about my usage patterns if the PC is so unstable I have to keep
>>> > rebooting it. I actually felt that 64 bit Vista provided a better
>>> > user
>>> > experience when SuperFetch was disabled. Is part of the problem here
>>> > that
>>> > it's caching native 64bit and WOW libraries on startup thus taking an
>>> > age to
>>> > get going and consuming almost 2GB for cache before I've actually had
>>> > a
>>> > chance to do anything with the computer? [If the kernel worked
>>> > properly
>>> > there probably won't be any need for ReadyBoost.]
>>> >
>>> > * UAC seems to be a big problem for existing applications.
>>> >
>>> > * There seems to be issues in IE where the browser hangs on when it's
>>> > waiting on something (eg: network response or content rendering or
>>> > something).
>>> >
>>> > Windows Vista Ultimate 32 bit
>>> >
>>> > Having failed miserably with 64 bit I went back to 32 bit. This
>>> > required
>>> > that I gave away 1GB of RAM but appeared otherwise to be a little more
>>> > stable. I still have problems with:
>>> >
>>> > * Some applications failing to start/respond.
>>> >
>>> > * Shutdown/suspend/hibernate issues.
>>> >
>>> > There's also some silly bugs in some of the apps. for example:
>>> >
>>> > * Attemping to burn a AVI file to DVD with Windows DVD maker; gets to
>>> > 79.9%
>>> > and then just sits forever with no progress, no discernable error,
>>> > etc. Who
>>> > tested this stuff?
>>> >
>>> > * If I try to use Windows Backup to backup to a disk which I
>>> > previously used
>>> > for a backup and then reformatted (same name), it still insists there
>>> > are
>>> > files backed up on the drive ...
>>> >
>>> > In general, my experience with Vista seems to be summarized by
>>> > wait-wait-retry-kill-retry-reboot-power-off-restart-wait-wait.
>>> >
>>> > WHAT DO I WANT:
>>> >
>>> > * I spent a lot of money on the hardware and software. The
>>> > combination DOES
>>> > NOT LIVE UP TO THE PROMISE. I want a working FAST and STABLE system.
>>> >
>>> > * I want some level of granular control over the operation of the
>>> > ReadyBoost
>>> > and SuperFetch features as well as an easy way to identify and stop
>>> > components in the system I don't need (which properly explains them,
>>> > what
>>> > they do and what the impact is of turning them off).
>>> >
>>> > * There are virtually no 64 bit applications for 64 bit Vista. Why
>>> > can't
>>> > you just allow 32 bit Vista to access > 4GB on systems that allow
>>> > this? I've
>>> > read lot's of forums about PAE/3GB/36bit/40bit addressing etc. This
>>> > would
>>> > allow for a leaner O/S which could still access larger amounts of RAM
>>> > though
>>> > limiting individual process address spaces; I think most people
>>> > wouldn't have
>>> > a problem with that. Works in Windows 32bit Servers - why not for
>>> > Vista?
>>> >
>>> > RIGHT NOW:
>>> >
>>> > I'm trying out Linux distributions to see which ones come with the
>>> > best h/w
>>> > support for my T61. If MicroSoft can't get a handle on Vista then I
>>> > will be
>>> > an ex-customer.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ----------------
>>> > This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
>>> > suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click
>>> > the "I
>>> > Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button,
>>> > follow this
>>> > link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and
>>> > then
>>> > click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>>> >
>>> > http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com....64bit.general

>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Jssamp
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2008
It looks like Brandon has been ignored but I am hoping someone can address
some of his problems since I have some of the same ones.

I have an HP Pavilion dv9500 with Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, Vista Ultimate
64-bit. I have intermittent problems that are getting really irritating. I
use IE7 32-bit browser because the Flash Player won't work in the 64-bit IE7.
Sometimes for no reason I can discern IE opens any more new tabs or windows
with a black screen. It seems that everything is else is still happening, ie.
if I was entering a transaction or purchase I can't see that it completed but
if I restart IE and check on it, it was completed. Of course it's useless to
me anyway, I have to restart. Usually closing all IE windows is sufficient
and I can start IE again and it works for a while. Sometimes I have to
restart Vista to get IE to display correctly.

HP Tech Support twice told me it was the nVidia driver but installing the
driver they gave me didn't help.

Any Ideas?


"Brandon" wrote:

> This is part suggestion, part discussion, part complaint ... (a rant?)
>
> Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit
>
> I've been using Vista for some months now and I have to say I am deeply
> unhappy with the OS. I have it running on a Thinkpad T61 (2GHz x 2, 800 MHz
> FSB), 4GB RAM, 160 5400 SATA, nVidia NVS140m, etc.
>
> In my first outing I tried Vista 64bit so I could fully utilise all 4GB of
> RAM. Yes, while the RAM is available my feeling was that the performance of
> the laptop was below that of my previous Acer TM803 with 2GB with XP.
>
> Initially I had issues because of a known broadcast issue with DHCP and
> older routers - I could not get Wireless working with DHCP on my Linksys ADSL
> router. I did find the registry resolve for this but elected in the mean
> time to stop using DHCP as it was simpler (especially when rebuilding, etc).
> I would just hate to be a typical consumer user trying to deal with this O/S.
> I believe it would be unworkable for users with no technical background.
>
> Apart from the perception of general slow performance I felt beset by issues
> where apps., services, browsers, etc, simply stopped responding and had to be
> killed off, or worse, the computer had to be restarted.
>
> In terms of restarting the computer, that wasn't pretty either as more often
> than not it would fail to shut down properly, and then take an absolute age
> to start up again. I've also had issues where the computer wouldn't suspend
> or hibernate properly leading me to leave it on full-power mode most of the
> time (a laptop ...).
>
> I also seemed to have a lot of problems with dropping wireless connection
> that I hadn't previously experienced on Windows XP, and didn't experience
> when I later retried XP on this system.
>
> So; it was problems compounded with problems and more problems, and I'm
> LIVID at the amount of time I've wasted in front of what should have been a
> blisteringly fast laptop. It, along with Vista, and Office 2007, where not a
> trivial investment.
>
> Summary:
>
> * Well, it's unstable. Full stop. It might be the apps., but surely
> backward compatability is a watchword when rolling out an o/s?
>
> * Perhaps there are driver issues too; but aren't all of the drivers for
> 64bit certified by Microsoft?
>
> * Superfetch seems to be an issue. It certainly cannot learn anything
> useful about my usage patterns if the PC is so unstable I have to keep
> rebooting it. I actually felt that 64 bit Vista provided a better user
> experience when SuperFetch was disabled. Is part of the problem here that
> it's caching native 64bit and WOW libraries on startup thus taking an age to
> get going and consuming almost 2GB for cache before I've actually had a
> chance to do anything with the computer? [If the kernel worked properly
> there probably won't be any need for ReadyBoost.]
>
> * UAC seems to be a big problem for existing applications.
>
> * There seems to be issues in IE where the browser hangs on when it's
> waiting on something (eg: network response or content rendering or something).
>
> Windows Vista Ultimate 32 bit
>
> Having failed miserably with 64 bit I went back to 32 bit. This required
> that I gave away 1GB of RAM but appeared otherwise to be a little more
> stable. I still have problems with:
>
> * Some applications failing to start/respond.
>
> * Shutdown/suspend/hibernate issues.
>
> There's also some silly bugs in some of the apps. for example:
>
> * Attemping to burn a AVI file to DVD with Windows DVD maker; gets to 79.9%
> and then just sits forever with no progress, no discernable error, etc. Who
> tested this stuff?
>
> * If I try to use Windows Backup to backup to a disk which I previously used
> for a backup and then reformatted (same name), it still insists there are
> files backed up on the drive ...
>
> In general, my experience with Vista seems to be summarized by
> wait-wait-retry-kill-retry-reboot-power-off-restart-wait-wait.
>
> WHAT DO I WANT:
>
> * I spent a lot of money on the hardware and software. The combination DOES
> NOT LIVE UP TO THE PROMISE. I want a working FAST and STABLE system.
>
> * I want some level of granular control over the operation of the ReadyBoost
> and SuperFetch features as well as an easy way to identify and stop
> components in the system I don't need (which properly explains them, what
> they do and what the impact is of turning them off).
>
> * There are virtually no 64 bit applications for 64 bit Vista. Why can't
> you just allow 32 bit Vista to access > 4GB on systems that allow this? I've
> read lot's of forums about PAE/3GB/36bit/40bit addressing etc. This would
> allow for a leaner O/S which could still access larger amounts of RAM though
> limiting individual process address spaces; I think most people wouldn't have
> a problem with that. Works in Windows 32bit Servers - why not for Vista?
>
> RIGHT NOW:
>
> I'm trying out Linux distributions to see which ones come with the best h/w
> support for my T61. If MicroSoft can't get a handle on Vista then I will be
> an ex-customer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------
> This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
> suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
> Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
> link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
> click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>
> http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com....64bit.general

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dimdows Stability & Reliabitily Fix Breaks Stability & Reliability Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 1 02-06-2010 07:35 PM
Genty. Can I have Vista 32 Bit on my 320GB "C" drive, and Vista 64 Bit on my 320Gb "D" drive?? Knowledge Computer Support 5 12-20-2007 03:05 PM
32 bit IE stability jdrusch@gmail.com Windows 64bit 5 07-22-2006 07:28 PM
stability problems... nova NZ Computing 15 04-13-2005 03:09 AM
canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L : Image Stability vs. No Image Stability n Digital Photography 17 12-04-2004 06:09 AM



Advertisments