My new Vista SP1 machine

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by impossible, Jul 22, 2008.

  1. impossible

    impossible Guest

    I resisted the Vista upgrade hype for a long time. In part, this was sheer
    instinct, because I've seen too many Microsoft os releases that never come
    right until the first Service Pack, and I was determined to wait at least
    that long to see how Vista performed. But in part, too, I was simply
    unimpressed by the changes Microsoft had made moving from XP to Vista. Was
    it really worth the money to upgrade? Like a lot of people, I really
    couldn't see the value.

    But then most of the objections to Vista that I found myself reading -- here
    and elsewhere -- seemed to revolve around a couple of notions that simply
    didn't ring true to me:

    (1) Vista's hardware requirements are too great. Ok, maybe, but to each
    their own. If all you ever want to do with your pc is stuff that can be
    handled by a lightly endowed machine running Win9x or some stripped down
    Linux distro then that's fine. But for the power-user category of people
    like myself that's never been, and never will be, satisfied with sluggish,
    hardware upgrades are going to take place regularly with or without os
    upgrades. Since Vista was released back in January 07, I'd already upgraded
    fully half the components on my XP machine. Why? Because the hardware is
    always getting better and because I can always make good use of every bit of
    affordable grunt I can get my hands on. Soon, I would be wanting to replace
    other components as well, and I was sure that most of **my** minimum
    requirements at that point would dwarf Vista's minimum requirements.

    (2) Vista is incompatible with too much hardware and software. On the
    hardware front, this is simply not true anymore, as almost all users would
    testify. Manufacturers have released Vista-compatible drivers for
    practically everything and they work just fine. On the software front, yes,
    any software that doesn't adhere to Vista's new security requirements (and
    some other peculiarities) is a candidate for annoying work-arounds if not
    not outright failure. But this happens with **every** major new version of
    Windows, and Microsoft actually does a pretty good job of providing tools
    (like the Vista Upgrade Adviser) that will flag most of the potential
    hazards for you ahead of time

    So....after shopping for some time online for new hardware, I decided to
    finally take the plunge and throw Vista into my basket, too.

    First the requisite hardware upgrade.

    I would have upgraded anyway, of course, because my existing XP machine was
    an AMD 64 X2 5600 with an Asus motherboard I was never happy with in the
    first place. But I knew going in that I would be disappointed with Vista's
    performance if I didn't kick some of the core components up a notch from
    what I might ordinarily have settled for. This is especially true with the
    graphics card, because I'm not a gamer and the 2D performance of the Radeon
    1600 I've had for several years was excellent. Since the Vista graphics
    system takes over most of the basic windowing tasks that were previously
    relegated to the cpu, it makes sense to expect that your needs will be much
    greater there than you might otherwise expect -- even if you weren't
    interested in deploying all of Vista's eye-candy (which is subtle, totally
    customisable, and very cool, BTW).

    Now, since I spend a great deal of my time in the US these days, I have
    unlimited access to what's become a very competitive on-line market. Prices
    here, IOW, are excellent compared to those in NZ. And so here's what I got:

    CPU: Intel E8400 (3.0 GHz) -- US$180 / NZ$300
    Motherboard: Intel DP35DP -- US$90 / NZ$195
    RAM: Corsair XMS2 (4x1Gb) -- US$105 / NZ$256
    PSU: OCZ Gamestream 600W -- US$110 / NZ$198
    GPU: Gigabyte Radeon HD 3870 -- US$99 (including $30 rebate I just cashed)/
    NZ$347
    Drives: 2x Seagate 7200.11 (500 Gb) -- US$170 / NZ$290
    Case: Antec P182 -- US$89 (including $50 rebate I just cashed) / NZ$209
    Vista SP1 32-bit Business Upgrade Edition -- US$180 /NZ$416

    TOTALS

    US$1060 (includes $37 shipping + zero tax for on-line purchases)
    NZ$2211(+ GST + shipping, if applicable)

    My US source: NewEgg.Com
    NZ prices sourced from http://www.ascent.co.nz/ for all items except the
    case, which I found at www.nzoczone.com.

    While I'm sure there might be better bargains to be be found on this or that
    component at various NZ shops, it's really pretty striking what a different
    world Kiwi's are shopping in today.

    Second, however, came the requisite software fixes. So much has been made
    about this in response to the initially awful Vista release that I thought
    I'd offer some feedback on my experience with SP1.

    Driver issues for me are what they have always been whenever I change
    hardware and/or os -- a pain. But since I collected everything I needed
    ahead of time for my Vista machine, the job went pretty smoothly. I used
    none of the CD-based drivers that shipped with my components but instead
    sourced the latest of everything from the manufacturer's sites. And, as you
    might expect, a year-and-a-half out from Vista's inaugural, there was almost
    nothing I couldn't find, including my five-year old Brother HL-1440 that
    just keeps on ticking. The once glitch was with my Linksys WMP54G wireless
    adapter -- Linksys didn't offer a Vista driver for my firmware release, and
    while Vista's Automatic Update would have (and eventually did) fix me right
    up, that was obviously going to be no help to me getting online in the
    first place. In the end, I was able to track down the site for the actual
    manufacturer of the adapter (Ralink) and I grabbed a Vista driver there.

    The basic Vista installation then went surprisingly well. I was able to do a
    clean install with my upgrade CD (just don't enter your key when initially
    asked and you get a 30-day trial that doesn't affect your existing XP
    license). Later, once I was satisfied that Vista was a winner for me, I
    simply clicked "activate" and in 15 seconds the deed was done.

    Finally, there were the odd software compatibility issues to resolve.
    Fortunately, I'd run Microsoft's Vista Upgrade Advisor ahead of time and
    discovered that I had 4-5 items installed on my existing XP machine that
    simply were not going to run well or at all on Vista (PhotoImpact 11, for
    instance, which I rarely used, but also AcdSee 6, which I used a lot) and so
    I had to make some upgrade choices there. But the major issues for me
    revolved around a couple of applications -- SAS and ArcGis -- that Microsoft
    had given a "pass" when they really shouldn't have. The problems here
    revolved around difficulties in **installing** these applications in Vista,
    not running them, so maybe that's an understandable oversight on Microsoft's
    part. Still, if I couldn't run two of may key applications on Vista, then
    Vista would be a no-go for me. In the end, it turned out that the makers of
    SAS and ArcGis actually had Vista-compatibility patches on their sites that
    fixed everything, so the drama passed. Almost every other difficulty I've
    had working with software on Vista has concerned the user account security
    policy, which I've had to learn to customize to my liking.

    Anyway, there you have it. From my perspective, Vista turns out to be a
    great performer -- snappy, secure, reliable, easy on the eye, so I'm not in
    the least disappointed with the results. And, of course, when "Windows 7"
    rolls out in a couple of years, I'm sure I'll eventually put myself through
    a similar process all over again. Arguably, no one in heir right mind would
    do this kind of thing outside the US, where the prices are just so much
    friendlier, but that's another discussion altogether.
     
    impossible, Jul 22, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Puddle" <> wrote in message
    news:48865e2e$...
    > impossible wrote:
    >> I resisted the Vista upgrade hype for a long time. In part, this was
    >> sheer instinct, because I've seen too many Microsoft os releases that
    >> never come right until the first Service Pack, and I was determined to
    >> wait at least that long to see how Vista performed. But in part, too, I
    >> was simply unimpressed by the changes Microsoft had made moving from XP
    >> to Vista. Was it really worth the money to upgrade? Like a lot of
    >> people, I really couldn't see the value.
    >>
    >> But then most of the objections to Vista that I found myself reading --
    >> here and elsewhere -- seemed to revolve around a couple of notions that
    >> simply didn't ring true to me:
    >>
    >> (1) Vista's hardware requirements are too great. Ok, maybe, but to each
    >> their own. If all you ever want to do with your pc is stuff that can be
    >> handled by a lightly endowed machine running Win9x or some stripped down
    >> Linux distro then that's fine. But for the power-user category of people
    >> like myself that's never been, and never will be, satisfied with
    >> sluggish, hardware upgrades are going to take place regularly with or
    >> without os upgrades. Since Vista was released back in January 07, I'd
    >> already upgraded fully half the components on my XP machine. Why? Because
    >> the hardware is always getting better and because I can always make good
    >> use of every bit of affordable grunt I can get my hands on. Soon, I would
    >> be wanting to replace other components as well, and I was sure that most
    >> of **my** minimum requirements at that point would dwarf Vista's minimum
    >> requirements.
    >>
    >> (2) Vista is incompatible with too much hardware and software. On the
    >> hardware front, this is simply not true anymore, as almost all users
    >> would testify. Manufacturers have released Vista-compatible drivers for
    >> practically everything and they work just fine. On the software front,
    >> yes, any software that doesn't adhere to Vista's new security
    >> requirements (and some other peculiarities) is a candidate for annoying
    >> work-arounds if not not outright failure. But this happens with **every**
    >> major new version of Windows, and Microsoft actually does a pretty good
    >> job of providing tools (like the Vista Upgrade Adviser) that will flag
    >> most of the potential hazards for you ahead of time
    >>
    >> So....after shopping for some time online for new hardware, I decided to
    >> finally take the plunge and throw Vista into my basket, too.
    >>
    >> First the requisite hardware upgrade.
    >>
    >> I would have upgraded anyway, of course, because my existing XP machine
    >> was an AMD 64 X2 5600 with an Asus motherboard I was never happy with in
    >> the first place. But I knew going in that I would be disappointed with
    >> Vista's performance if I didn't kick some of the core components up a
    >> notch from what I might ordinarily have settled for. This is especially
    >> true with the graphics card, because I'm not a gamer and the 2D
    >> performance of the Radeon 1600 I've had for several years was excellent.
    >> Since the Vista graphics system takes over most of the basic windowing
    >> tasks that were previously relegated to the cpu, it makes sense to expect
    >> that your needs will be much greater there than you might otherwise
    >> expect -- even if you weren't interested in deploying all of Vista's
    >> eye-candy (which is subtle, totally customisable, and very cool, BTW).
    >>
    >> Now, since I spend a great deal of my time in the US these days, I have
    >> unlimited access to what's become a very competitive on-line market.
    >> Prices here, IOW, are excellent compared to those in NZ. And so here's
    >> what I got:
    >>
    >> CPU: Intel E8400 (3.0 GHz) -- US$180 / NZ$300
    >> Motherboard: Intel DP35DP -- US$90 / NZ$195
    >> RAM: Corsair XMS2 (4x1Gb) -- US$105 / NZ$256
    >> PSU: OCZ Gamestream 600W -- US$110 / NZ$198
    >> GPU: Gigabyte Radeon HD 3870 -- US$99 (including $30 rebate I just
    >> cashed)/ NZ$347
    >> Drives: 2x Seagate 7200.11 (500 Gb) -- US$170 / NZ$290
    >> Case: Antec P182 -- US$89 (including $50 rebate I just cashed) / NZ$209
    >> Vista SP1 32-bit Business Upgrade Edition -- US$180 /NZ$416
    >>
    >> TOTALS
    >>
    >> US$1060 (includes $37 shipping + zero tax for on-line purchases)
    >> NZ$2211(+ GST + shipping, if applicable)
    >>
    >> My US source: NewEgg.Com
    >> NZ prices sourced from http://www.ascent.co.nz/ for all items except the
    >> case, which I found at www.nzoczone.com.
    >>
    >> While I'm sure there might be better bargains to be be found on this or
    >> that component at various NZ shops, it's really pretty striking what a
    >> different world Kiwi's are shopping in today.
    >>
    >> Second, however, came the requisite software fixes. So much has been made
    >> about this in response to the initially awful Vista release that I
    >> thought I'd offer some feedback on my experience with SP1.
    >>
    >> Driver issues for me are what they have always been whenever I change
    >> hardware and/or os -- a pain. But since I collected everything I needed
    >> ahead of time for my Vista machine, the job went pretty smoothly. I used
    >> none of the CD-based drivers that shipped with my components but instead
    >> sourced the latest of everything from the manufacturer's sites. And, as
    >> you might expect, a year-and-a-half out from Vista's inaugural, there was
    >> almost nothing I couldn't find, including my five-year old Brother
    >> HL-1440 that just keeps on ticking. The once glitch was with my Linksys
    >> WMP54G wireless adapter -- Linksys didn't offer a Vista driver for my
    >> firmware release, and while Vista's Automatic Update would have (and
    >> eventually did) fix me right up, that was obviously going to be no help
    >> to me getting online in the first place. In the end, I was able to track
    >> down the site for the actual manufacturer of the adapter (Ralink) and I
    >> grabbed a Vista driver there.
    >>
    >> The basic Vista installation then went surprisingly well. I was able to
    >> do a clean install with my upgrade CD (just don't enter your key when
    >> initially asked and you get a 30-day trial that doesn't affect your
    >> existing XP license). Later, once I was satisfied that Vista was a winner
    >> for me, I simply clicked "activate" and in 15 seconds the deed was done.
    >>
    >> Finally, there were the odd software compatibility issues to resolve.
    >> Fortunately, I'd run Microsoft's Vista Upgrade Advisor ahead of time and
    >> discovered that I had 4-5 items installed on my existing XP machine that
    >> simply were not going to run well or at all on Vista (PhotoImpact 11, for
    >> instance, which I rarely used, but also AcdSee 6, which I used a lot) and
    >> so I had to make some upgrade choices there. But the major issues for me
    >> revolved around a couple of applications -- SAS and ArcGis -- that
    >> Microsoft had given a "pass" when they really shouldn't have. The
    >> problems here revolved around difficulties in **installing** these
    >> applications in Vista, not running them, so maybe that's an
    >> understandable oversight on Microsoft's part. Still, if I couldn't run
    >> two of may key applications on Vista, then Vista would be a no-go for me.
    >> In the end, it turned out that the makers of SAS and ArcGis actually had
    >> Vista-compatibility patches on their sites that fixed everything, so the
    >> drama passed. Almost every other difficulty I've had working with
    >> software on Vista has concerned the user account security policy, which
    >> I've had to learn to customize to my liking.
    >>
    >> Anyway, there you have it. From my perspective, Vista turns out to be a
    >> great performer -- snappy, secure, reliable, easy on the eye, so I'm not
    >> in the least disappointed with the results. And, of course, when "Windows
    >> 7" rolls out in a couple of years, I'm sure I'll eventually put myself
    >> through a similar process all over again. Arguably, no one in heir right
    >> mind would do this kind of thing outside the US, where the prices are
    >> just so much friendlier, but that's another discussion altogether.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I bought a laptop very recently which came with Vista. Vista ran fine, it
    > isn't the monster many make it out to be.
    > It was stable, ran everything I wanted to run on it etc etc.
    >
    > I ended up putting XP on the laptop though in a dual boot mode and truth
    > be told haven't used vista since. While I don't think Vista is bad, I
    > also couldn't find anything it did that XP couldn't do and XP uses far
    > less memory etc so what was the point in wasting CPU cycles and memory for
    > a OS that wasn't giving me anything more? Vista seems to need 2 gigs of
    > memory just to run at a good pace, that isn't a problem with todays memory
    > prices of course, but why waste that memory when you aren't getting
    > anything over XP?
    >


    Agreed. I would never recommend Vista to anyone running less than a middling
    dual-core processor, 3-4GB of memory, and a dedicated graphics card released
    since 2007. For some time to come yet, I think laptops sold with Vista are
    going to be especially vulnerable in just that sense, and shame on Microsoft
    and their vendor partners for luring people into a lot of bad deals that
    ways. While you can always throttle Vista down some to accomodate lesser
    machines, what then, as you say, is the point of getting Vista onboard in
    the first place?

    > I have a very high spec machine that I use for gaming which is also
    > running XP though I am tempted to install Vista because some of the games
    > are starting to use directx10 and they do look nice but for me that is the
    > only thing that I would move to vista for and that annoys me cause it
    > could have been rolled out on XP too but obviously then there would be one
    > more major reason for people to stay with XP.
    >


    I'm finding that Vista actually boots quicker than XP and loads my main
    applications faster, which is a nice surprise. And out-of-the-box security
    seems much improved. So all-in-all now I'm inclined to think that Vista is
    actually a pretty nice upgrade. But no one who hesitates to shift from XP at
    this point will get an argument from me. After all, Windows 7 isn't far off.
    In my case, I was itching for a hardware upgrade anyway, and so the graphics
    card I ended up getting was really the only Vista-induced indulgence.
    Basically, I think if you have the right hardware, then you won't be
    disappointed running Vista. But will you be impressed? Probably not.
     
    impossible, Jul 22, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>, Freesias <> wrote:
    >On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:14:19 +1200, Puddle wrote:
    >
    >> I bought a laptop very recently which came with Vista. Vista ran fine,
    >> it isn't the monster many make it out to be. It was stable, ran
    >> everything I wanted to run on it etc etc.

    >
    >Have you tried playing a HD-DVD film using a monitor that hasn't had the
    >DRM disabling circuitry put into it?
    >
    >Have you tried copying MPEG2 multimedia content from a removable storage
    >medium to another storage medium?


    Trying to play a DVD crashed the machine on our vista laptop. Not sure what
    SP it's up to as I don't use it. :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 23, 2008
    #3
  4. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Bruce Sinclair" <> wrote
    in message news:g65t2r$784$...
    >
    > Trying to play a DVD crashed the machine on our vista laptop. Not sure
    > what
    > SP it's up to as I don't use it. :)
    >
    >


    Sounds like the kind of thing my grandmother would say. She doesn't know a
    thing about computers either.
     
    impossible, Jul 23, 2008
    #4
  5. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Freesias" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:22:57 +1200, Puddle wrote:
    >
    >> Freesias wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:14:19 +1200, Puddle wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I bought a laptop very recently which came with Vista. Vista ran
    >>>> fine, it isn't the monster many make it out to be. It was stable, ran
    >>>> everything I wanted to run on it etc etc.
    >>>
    >>> Have you tried playing a HD-DVD film using a monitor that hasn't had
    >>> the DRM disabling circuitry put into it?
    >>>
    >>> Have you tried copying MPEG2 multimedia content from a removable
    >>> storage medium to another storage medium?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> As I said
    >>
    >> "ran everything __I__ wanted to run"
    >>
    >> Just because some people have issues doesn't mean everyone does.

    >
    > Ah!
    >
    > "My computer works perfectly fine with MS Windows Vista Ultimate 32bit
    > Edition installed onto it. It does everything I want it to do. What do I
    > want it to do? Well, I use MS Internet Explorer, and I use MS Office, and
    > I use, MS Notepad. I don't need it to do anything else, so I don't know
    > why people are complaining that they cannot do stuff using MS Windows
    > when it works perfectly fine for me."
    >
    >


    Who are you quoting? No one? Thought so.
     
    impossible, Jul 23, 2008
    #5
  6. impossible

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    "Freesias" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:22:57 +1200, Puddle wrote:
    >> Freesias wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:14:19 +1200, Puddle wrote:
    >>>> I bought a laptop very recently which came with Vista. Vista ran
    >>>> fine, it isn't the monster many make it out to be. It was stable, ran
    >>>> everything I wanted to run on it etc etc.
    >>>
    >>> Have you tried playing a HD-DVD film using a monitor that hasn't had
    >>> the DRM disabling circuitry put into it?


    Admittedly no, as I have neither any films in HD format nor an HD monitor --
    like 99.999% (probably more) of the rest of the population, I would imagine.

    >>> Have you tried copying MPEG2 multimedia content from a removable
    >>> storage medium to another storage medium?


    This made me curious, so now I have tried that, yes. Didn't encounter any
    difficulties.

    >> As I said
    >> "ran everything __I__ wanted to run"
    >> Just because some people have issues doesn't mean everyone does.

    >
    > "My computer works perfectly fine with MS Windows Vista Ultimate 32bit
    > Edition installed onto it. It does everything I want it to do. What do I
    > want it to do? Well, I use MS Internet Explorer, and I use MS Office, and
    > I use, MS Notepad. I don't need it to do anything else, so I don't know
    > why people are complaining that they cannot do stuff using MS Windows
    > when it works perfectly fine for me."


    Nice straw man you have there!

    I have no issues with Vista either and I use my OS a little more intensively
    than that.

    A representative but by no means full list, excluding the MS stuff that I
    use (Office, Visual Studio, SQL Server etc. etc.):

    Adobe products (Illustrator, Photoshop etc.)
    Acronis products (trueimage, diskdirector etc)
    Audacity (Oh, I appear to be able to do anything I like with audio,
    shouldn't the terrible DRM be stopping me?)
    Corel products (Paint Shop Pro etc)
    Cygwin
    DosBox
    DVD Shrink (See comment for Audacity)
    FileZilla
    GIMP
    Google Earth
    Full suite of browsers, FireFox, Opera, Safari, IE etc.
    Inkscape
    MagicISO
    Mono
    Notepad++
    VMWare workstation (running a couple of different linux distros, gasp!)
    PHP
    Python
    Sandboxie
    VLC

    Hmmm, an eclectic mix of free (both senses of the word), commerical,
    lightweight and intensive software, all of which works for me flawlessly,
    including all of the stuff that works with media.

    Also... don't you think it's a little impetuous, negative and small minded
    to bash people's choice of OS at every opportunity?
     
    Nik Coughlin, Jul 23, 2008
    #6
  7. In article <>, Freesias <> wrote:
    >On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:22:57 +1200, Puddle wrote:
    >> Freesias wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:14:19 +1200, Puddle wrote:
    >>>> I bought a laptop very recently which came with Vista. Vista ran
    >>>> fine, it isn't the monster many make it out to be. It was stable, ran
    >>>> everything I wanted to run on it etc etc.
    >>> Have you tried playing a HD-DVD film using a monitor that hasn't had
    >>> the DRM disabling circuitry put into it?
    >>>
    >>> Have you tried copying MPEG2 multimedia content from a removable
    >>> storage medium to another storage medium?


    >> As I said
    >> "ran everything __I__ wanted to run"
    >> Just because some people have issues doesn't mean everyone does.


    >Ah!
    >"My computer works perfectly fine with MS Windows Vista Ultimate 32bit
    >Edition installed onto it. It does everything I want it to do. What do I
    >want it to do? Well, I use MS Internet Explorer, and I use MS Office, and
    >I use, MS Notepad. I don't need it to do anything else, so I don't know
    >why people are complaining that they cannot do stuff using MS Windows
    >when it works perfectly fine for me."


    It's a valid, if limited, view. :) After all, if that's all you want to do,
    then it may well work fine.
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 23, 2008
    #7
  8. impossible

    Will Spencer Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:31:38 GMT, impossible wrote:
    *giant snip*


    Good post, very informative.

    Btw I run Vista 64bit sp1 (I originally ran the 32bit version, but thought,
    ****, it's 2008, time to get with the times). Glad I did move to 64bit,
    it's faster, more secure, and everything works.

    My hw is Intel Quad core, 8 gig ram, nvidia 640meg 8800gts.

    Gotta love pc hardware, it's one of the few things in this world that's
    getting cheaper instead of more expensive.

    -ws
     
    Will Spencer, Jul 23, 2008
    #8
  9. impossible

    Richard Guest

    ofn01 wrote:
    > Have you found sleep to be reliable? This is the only area where I

    have had
    > mixed reliability.


    I have inadvertantly done it a few times and had nothing bad happen,
    unlike on xp where it would usually come up to a mouse that I can move
    around and a blank background more often then it would come back properly.
     
    Richard, Jul 23, 2008
    #9
  10. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "ofn01" <> wrote in message
    news:48870611$...
    >
    > "impossible" <> wrote in message
    > news:_Pohk.265092$yE1.119184@attbi_s21...
    >> Anyway, there you have it. From my perspective, Vista turns out to be a
    >> great performer -- snappy, secure, reliable, easy on the eye, so I'm not
    >> in the least disappointed with the results. And, of course, when "Windows
    >> 7" rolls out in a couple of years, I'm sure I'll eventually put myself
    >> through a similar process all over again. Arguably, no one in heir right
    >> mind would do this kind of thing outside the US, where the prices are
    >> just so much friendlier, but that's another discussion altogether.
    >>

    >
    > Have you found sleep to be reliable? This is the only area where I have
    > had mixed reliability.
    >


    No, I've had no problems with sleep mode. I've set it to kick in after 1
    hour of inactivity, and then it pops back to the login screen as soon as I
    hit my power switch. I was pleasantly surprised by this, and I've still got
    my fingers crossed, because I know that Vista's sleep function has given
    plenty of users fits. SP1 was supposed to address this, I think, but I don't
    know to what effect. Also, this is one of those issues that I think has
    sometimes been traced back to hardware incompatibilities of one kind or
    another -- I know, for example, that in the case of both my old board (Asus
    M2NE) and new board (Intel DP35DP) the manufacturers released a bios upgrade
    to address the problem. If you're still having trouble, you might check your
    own manufacturer's site.
     
    impossible, Jul 23, 2008
    #10
  11. impossible

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    "Freesias" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:14:17 +1200, Nik Coughlin wrote:
    >
    >> Also... don't you think it's a little impetuous, negative and small
    >> minded to bash people's choice of OS at every opportunity?

    >
    > I don't bash them. I happily bash the POS that various M$ shills claim is
    > high quality user-oriented software.


    There you go. You're calling me a shill. If honestly reporting my own
    personal experience is being a shill then it appears that shill has taken on
    a whole new meaning. I had thought that it meant:

    "One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe
    bystanders into participating in a swindle."

    Apparently what it actually means is:

    "One who finds that constant newsgroup posts about the OS he uses all day
    every day don't correlate with his own personal experience and not only
    that, has the audacity to say so."

    > The reality is that it is buggy,


    All software is inherantly buggy. Given that Vista hasn't yet crashed on me
    (indivual apps have though, without affecting the system -- as one would
    expect) would it not be reasonable for me to assume that Vista is, well,
    just not that buggy?

    > slow,


    Is it?

    Admittedly I have a high end system, but it doesn't feel slow to me. The
    GUI is very responsive, boots to desktop faster than anything else I've
    used. Admittedly the only modern Linux distros I've used to any extent are
    Ubuntu and SUSE. I've tried most other distros once or twice, not all of
    them recently though, so maybe I'm not making a fair comparison. I'm sure
    there are others that are faster than Vista, in fact I'm sure it's not the
    fastest by any stretch, but it's certainly not "slow" by any stretch of the
    imagination. Maybe on old hardware, but I wouldn't run it on old hardware,
    I'd use a more suitable OS.

    > bloated,


    I won't argue with you there. Good thing I have plenty of disk space and
    it's cheap as chips then, isn't it?

    > DRM-nobbled


    I won't argue with you there either, I wouldn't know from personal
    experience as I don't buy or use any DRM infected media in the first place,
    apart from DVDs, the "DRM" on which is trivial for any program that deals
    with them to bypass (that goes for Xine, VLC, mplayer et. al. on Linux too),
    and which I don't have any problems ripping in Vista. Also, I'm pretty
    certain that I could easily bypass anything that annoyed me should the need
    arise -- 30 seconds in Google does the trick in my experience.

    > user-antagonistic


    I'm not feeling particularly antagonised, but hey, again, just my personal
    experience.

    > software that has more akin
    > with Sony's pwn1ng attitude to what consumers should be able to do than
    > it has with what people may want to do with what they had been in the
    > habit of thinking of as their own generalised computing equipment
    > commonly called a "PC".


    Again, I do much more with my computer than most people do, and I haven't
    been stopped from doing anything that I wanted to do. Not once.
     
    Nik Coughlin, Jul 23, 2008
    #11
  12. impossible

    Chris Lim Guest

    On Jul 24, 10:39 am, Puddle <> wrote:
    > Freesias wrote:
    > > On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:04:17 +1200, Puddle wrote:

    >
    > >>>>> "My computer works perfectly fine with MS Windows Vista Ultimate
    > >>>>> 32bit Edition installed onto it. It does everything I want it to do..
    > >>>>> What do I want it to do? Well, I use MS Internet Explorer, and I use
    > >>>>> MS Office, and I use, MS Notepad. I don't need it to do anything
    > >>>>> else, so I don't know why people are complaining that they cannot do
    > >>>>> stuff using MS Windows when it works perfectly fine for me."

    >
    > >>>> Are you quoting your imaginary friend?
    > >>> No - I merely paraphrased what you said.

    >
    > >> Yeah good paraphrasing...

    >
    > >> 1) I didn't state the applications I use, so you just randomly pulled
    > >> them out of thin air?

    >
    > > Correct. All of them Micro$oft applications. When building a strawman
    > > argument it is necessary to use the finest straw. In this case it is Micro
    > > $oft applications installed onto the latest-greatest (so to speak)
    > > version of M$ Windows.

    >
    > >> 2) I didn't state what version of Vista I used, but FYI it wasn't
    > >> Ultimate.

    >
    > > That does not matter. I chose Micro$oft Window$ Vi$ta 32bit Edition
    > > simply because it has such a stupidly long name.

    >
    > >> 3) I don't even use Vista, as I said, I moved to XP again.

    >
    > > From my point of view, I see no substantial difference - both are
    > > iterations of a kludgy OS. Both actively prevent users from using their
    > > computer hardware to the fullest extent possible.

    >
    > >> 4) I don't use IE or Office or notepad.

    >
    > > If you have MS Windows XP installed, then you DO use MSIE - that
    > > application cannot be uninstalled and then deleted - just like Windows
    > > Media Player cannot be uninstalled and then deleted.

    >
    > >> You wouldn't have a clue as to what I use a PC for

    >
    > > I am not all that interested in what you use your computer for - that is
    > > your business. :eek:)

    >
    > > However, you made an unqualified statement about M$ Windows not impacting
    > > on anything that you do.

    >
    > Are you mentally challenged or something???


    I think everyone knows the answer to that is yes!
     
    Chris Lim, Jul 23, 2008
    #12
  13. impossible

    Chris Lim Guest

    On Jul 24, 10:25 am, Freesias <> wrote:
    > What I find interesting is that "High Definition" is really only approx
    > twice the number of rows that we get with PAL.


    You find that interesting? Really?
     
    Chris Lim, Jul 24, 2008
    #13
  14. impossible

    Dave Taylor Guest

    "impossible" <> wrote in
    news:_Pohk.265092$yE1.119184@attbi_s21:

    > I resisted the Vista upgrade hype for a long time. In part, this was
    > sheer instinct, because I've seen too many Microsoft os releases that
    > never come right until the first Service Pack, and I was determined to
    > wait at least that long to see how Vista performed. But in part, too,
    > I was simply unimpressed by the changes Microsoft had made moving from
    > XP to Vista. Was it really worth the money to upgrade? Like a lot of
    > people, I really couldn't see the value.


    Thanks for the informative post about how you like the latest OS on new
    hardware. That is what it was made for and it should work. Glad to hear
    no problems exist for you.
    I wonder about people who try to run xp on win 98 machines, you just
    know they will try some kind of upgrade to vista only to have it bite them
    in the ass.




    --
    Ciao, Dave
     
    Dave Taylor, Jul 24, 2008
    #14
  15. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Dave Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9AE65B5D9630daveytaynospamplshot@203.97.37.6...
    > "impossible" <> wrote in
    > news:_Pohk.265092$yE1.119184@attbi_s21:
    >
    >> I resisted the Vista upgrade hype for a long time. In part, this was
    >> sheer instinct, because I've seen too many Microsoft os releases that
    >> never come right until the first Service Pack, and I was determined to
    >> wait at least that long to see how Vista performed. But in part, too,
    >> I was simply unimpressed by the changes Microsoft had made moving from
    >> XP to Vista. Was it really worth the money to upgrade? Like a lot of
    >> people, I really couldn't see the value.

    >
    > Thanks for the informative post about how you like the latest OS on new
    > hardware. That is what it was made for and it should work. Glad to hear
    > no problems exist for you.


    Sarcasm duly noted. ;)

    > I wonder about people who try to run xp on win 98 machines, you just
    > know they will try some kind of upgrade to vista only to have it bite them
    > in the ass.
    >
    >


    People act foolishly all the time, and there's really nothing that anyone
    can do about that.
     
    impossible, Jul 25, 2008
    #15
  16. In article <>, Freesias did write:

    > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:04:38 -0700, Chris Lim wrote:
    >
    >> On Jul 24, 10:25 am, Freesias <> wrote:
    >>> What I find interesting is that "High Definition" is really only approx
    >>> twice the number of rows that we get with PAL.

    >>
    >> You find that interesting? Really?

    >
    > Yeah - interesting that standard x 2 is then called "high definition".


    Probably because it does look noticeably better.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 25, 2008
    #16
  17. impossible

    biggles Guest

    On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:55:46 +0000, impossible wrote:


    >>
    >>> I resisted the Vista upgrade hype for a long time. In part, this was
    >>> sheer instinct, because I've seen too many Microsoft os releases that
    >>> never come right until the first Service Pack, and I was determined to
    >>> wait at least that long to see how Vista performed. But in part, too,
    >>> I was simply unimpressed by the changes Microsoft had made moving from
    >>> XP to Vista. Was it really worth the money to upgrade? Like a lot of
    >>> people, I really couldn't see the value.

    >>

    >snip



    Whats the speed difference in games eg ut3 crysis now versus xp ?

    biggles
     
    biggles, Aug 2, 2008
    #17
  18. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "biggles" <> wrote in message
    news:g71d4q$a8t$...
    > On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:55:46 +0000, impossible wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>
    >>>> I resisted the Vista upgrade hype for a long time. In part, this was
    >>>> sheer instinct, because I've seen too many Microsoft os releases that
    >>>> never come right until the first Service Pack, and I was determined to
    >>>> wait at least that long to see how Vista performed. But in part, too,
    >>>> I was simply unimpressed by the changes Microsoft had made moving from
    >>>> XP to Vista. Was it really worth the money to upgrade? Like a lot of
    >>>> people, I really couldn't see the value.
    >>>

    >>snip

    >
    >
    > Whats the speed difference in games eg ut3 crysis now versus xp ?
    >


    No idea. As I said in my original post, I'm not a gamer -- and besides, I
    upgraded all my hardware at the same time, so there's no useful comparison
    that I could make. From what I've read, however, the specs for running
    Crysis well are pretty demanding -- tomshardware.com, for example, uses a
    Crysis fps benchmark as one of its critical performance measures when
    comparing cpus, gpus, and motherboards. But tomshardware also uses Vista on
    all their new test-beds, so again it's impossible to say what difference the
    os makes. If you're a dedicated gamer with low-to-middling hardware and a
    tight budget, I probably wouldn't recommend moving to Vista (for all the
    reasons that have long since been snipped from my original post). But if
    your cpu is dual-core and you're always chasing the latest graphics cards
    anyway just to keep up with the latest gaming features, then I can't see
    where Vista would hurt you one bit.
     
    impossible, Aug 2, 2008
    #18
  19. impossible

    biggles Guest

    On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:31:30 +0000, impossible wrote:

    >


    snip>

    > recommend moving to Vista (for all the reasons that have long since been
    > snipped from my original post). But if your cpu is dual-core and you're
    > always chasing the latest graphics cards anyway just to keep up with the
    > latest gaming features, then I can't see where Vista would hurt you one
    > bit.




    Okay thanks :)

    Biggles
     
    biggles, Aug 4, 2008
    #19
  20. impossible

    Biggles Guest

    On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:20:00 +0200, biggles wrote:

    > On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:31:30 +0000, impossible wrote:
    >
    >
    >>

    > snip>
    >
    >> recommend moving to Vista (for all the reasons that have long since
    >> been snipped from my original post). But if your cpu is dual-core and
    >> you're always chasing the latest graphics cards anyway just to keep up
    >> with the latest gaming features, then I can't see where Vista would
    >> hurt you one bit.

    >
    >
    >
    > Okay thanks :)
    >
    > Biggles


    Well after 3 months of messing with the opensuse /beta's / rc / gold /
    KDE / gnome crappy sound system from the 90's .

    I slapped vista onto my main pc ..

    it flies and is miles better than how vista originally was ..

    ut3 levels load in a fraction of the time, new sound system is awesome.

    Biggles .
     
    Biggles, Aug 17, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jimmy Dean

    Where is Microsoft Virtual Machine in WinXP SP1?

    Jimmy Dean, Dec 22, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    556
  2. Spin
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    704
  3. Spin
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,148
  4. lbbss
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    562
  5. Ned
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    506
    Anteaus
    Aug 13, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page