Vista any good?

[Enigma]

I am getting sick and tired of XP not working during setup so I am thinking of switching to Vista. But I have a few questions.

Is Vista as stable as XP when both are fully patched at their currewnt level?

Are drivers (i.e. MSI 8500GT, hard drive, motherboard, etc..) available for Vista? If some are not can XP drivers be used?

Is the setup and instalation of Vista easier than XP?

[Vendetta]

It's like any new OS. Driver and app support is patchy, the system's probably got some landmines waiting to be discovered, and UAC is fantastically annoying.

Wait for Service Pack 1 at the very least.

[Enigma]

It's like any new OS. Driver and app support is patchy, the system's probably got some landmines waiting to be discovered, and UAC is fantastically annoying.

Wait for Service Pack 1 at the very least.

Can't wait. XP keeps crashing and stalling during setup. That latest stop error was from "DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL", 0x000000D1

[General Zod]

It's like any new OS. Driver and app support is patchy, the system's probably got some landmines waiting to be discovered, and UAC is fantastically annoying.

Wait for Service Pack 1 at the very least.

Can't wait. XP keeps crashing and stalling during setup. That latest stop error was from "DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL", 0x000000D1

That sounds like a hardware issue more than a software one. The last time I encountered something like that I had a laptop with too much RAM in it.

[Enigma]

It's like any new OS. Driver and app support is patchy, the system's probably got some landmines waiting to be discovered, and UAC is fantastically annoying.

Wait for Service Pack 1 at the very least.

Can't wait. XP keeps crashing and stalling during setup. That latest stop error was from "DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL", 0x000000D1

That sounds like a hardware issue more than a software one. The last time I encountered something like that I had a laptop with too much RAM in it.

The next thing I am going to do right after typing this is to buy new RAM. If this doesn't work then I am buying Vista.

[phongn]

If you have all of these problems right now, I'd strongly suggest holding off on Vista. You may have serious hardware problems that would only be worsened with Vista.

Have you tried using something like a Linux LiveCD to see if those work as well?

[General Zod]

Can't wait. XP keeps crashing and stalling during setup. That latest stop error was from "DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL", 0x000000D1

That sounds like a hardware issue more than a software one. The last time I encountered something like that I had a laptop with too much RAM in it.

The next thing I am going to do right after typing this is to buy new RAM. If this doesn't work then I am buying Vista.

It may be something else, so don't take my word on it 100%. Try taking out one of your chips and seeing if that does anything before you go out and spend alot of money.

[Vendetta]

If windows setup is throwing up STOP errors, and it's been successfully installed on this system before, your hardware is fucked somewhere, and Vista will just fall over harder and more often. Setup will only fall over if your system hardware is incompatible with Windows XP or is faulty.

Stop errors during installation are most frequently caused by RAM. First thing I'd do would be to run Windows Memory Diagnostic, or a similar program to test your memory modules.

If that comes up all OK, strip everything not absolutely necessary to install the operating system out of your computer. (down to VGA, Mainboard, RAM, CPU, HDD, and CD).

If that still doesn't work, try obtaining a different VGA card and swapping it in (borrow one if you can), or dropping down to onboard VGA if your motherboard has it.

If you still get no luck, you may be staring at a bad mainboard or CPU.

Have a good close look at the capacitors on the mainboard. If some appear to be swollen, that's the cause (sometimes they even burst and start leaking). If you can't identify the faulty part with a visual inspection, again try a swaptest, if you have another compatible CPU put it in.

Whatever it actually is, if your computer is experiencing problems just installing Windows XP, trying to install Vista is not going to make it better, and will almost certainly be even more trouble.

[Sharp-kun]

UAC is fantastically annoying.

And easy to turn off.

[Resinence]

UAC is fantastically annoying.

And easy to turn off.

And 128mb just for the kernel and core system processes? 100+mb for a direct rendered interface? Furthermore, 512mb MINIMUM to run a system is absolutely pathetic and show's what a pile of trash this "rewrite" of WINNT is. They promised a faster, meaner, better rewrite and released this bloated piece of absolute trash. Not to mention how many clock cycles and memory are wasted on archaic DRM. I expected more from microsoft, and the result is dissapointing. The only redeeming features I can think of is a more efficient display model and a very nice search function (though WINFS is far superior to the simple indexing service Vista has now).

Faster: Fail
Better Codebase: Fail
WinFS: No.
Better Hardware usage: Are you joking?

What did microsoft actually deliver that was promised? Honestly, I was hoping vista would be a great improvement over XP, not something I'm practically forced at gunpoint to upgrade to so I can run DX10 games*.

*Yes I know DX10 would be a PITA to port to XP, but people wouldn't want that if Vista didn't suck ass. [/rant]

[Resinence]

Oh and fucking breaking EAX. Thanks microshaft.

[General Zod]

UAC is fantastically annoying.

And easy to turn off.

And 128mb just for the kernel and core system processes? 100+mb for a direct rendered interface? Furthermore, 512mb MINIMUM to run a system is absolutely pathetic and show's what a pile of trash this "rewrite" of WINNT is. They promised a faster, meaner, better rewrite and released this bloated piece of absolute trash. Not to mention how many clock cycles and memory are wasted on archaic DRM. I expected more from microsoft, and the result is dissapointing. The only redeeming features I can think of is a more efficient display model and a very nice search function (though WINFS is far superior to the simple indexing service Vista has now).

Faster: Fail
Better Codebase: Fail
WinFS: No.
Better Hardware usage: Are you joking?

What did microsoft actually deliver that was promised? Honestly, I was hoping vista would be a great improvement over XP, not something I'm practically forced at gunpoint to upgrade to so I can run DX10 games*.

*Yes I know DX10 would be a PITA to port to XP, but people wouldn't want that if Vista didn't suck ass. [/rant]

What type of system do you have? I'm running Vista just fine on my 7 or so month old laptop after disabling Aero. The memory usage is virtually negligible. (Then again I have 2gb of ram too).

[Resinence]

What type of system do you have? I'm running Vista just fine on my 7 or so month old laptop after disabling Aero. The memory usage is virtually negligible. (Then again I have 2gb of ram too).

Oh my system is more than up to running Vista, I'm just extremely dissapointed with what was released after so many years of development and so many promises. I mean, WINFS was soooo nice, at least the dev builds I got to test were.

[General Zod]

What type of system do you have? I'm running Vista just fine on my 7 or so month old laptop after disabling Aero. The memory usage is virtually negligible. (Then again I have 2gb of ram too).

Oh my system is more than up to running Vista, I'm just extremely dissapointed with what was released after so many years of development and so many promises. I mean, WINFS was soooo nice, at least the dev builds I got to test were.

If it's up to running Vista then why all the complaints about how much memory it uses? Virtually every new OS winds up using more memory than the one it replaces.

[Ace Pace]

What type of system do you have? I'm running Vista just fine on my 7 or so month old laptop after disabling Aero. The memory usage is virtually negligible. (Then again I have 2gb of ram too).

Oh my system is more than up to running Vista, I'm just extremely dissapointed with what was released after so many years of development and so many promises. I mean, WINFS was soooo nice, at least the dev builds I got to test were.

If it's up to running Vista then why all the complaints about how much memory it uses? Virtually every new OS winds up using more memory than the one it replaces.

The arguments against windows Vista are nearly copy pastes of the complaints against XP, except switch the massive vista delays with "new operating system coming just a few years after the last one!"

[Resinence]

What type of system do you have? I'm running Vista just fine on my 7 or so month old laptop after disabling Aero. The memory usage is virtually negligible. (Then again I have 2gb of ram too).

Oh my system is more than up to running Vista, I'm just extremely dissapointed with what was released after so many years of development and so many promises. I mean, WINFS was soooo nice, at least the dev builds I got to test were.

If it's up to running Vista then why all the complaints about how much memory it uses? Virtually every new OS winds up using more memory than the one it replaces.

Because thats memory that could be used for other things, like Crysis And considering the Vista Kernel is WinNT5.2, and very similar to the XP one. There really is no reason why a stripped down Vista (Aero off, services disabled, indexing off etc... basically stripped down to what XP can do) should use so much more memory and clock cycles than the same machine on XP. I don't know why people just seem to accept that it should use more resources after (apparently) a complete rewrite of many core programs. I don't see OS X needing double the requirements every release. And the built in DRM and Trusted Computing big brotherware really grinds my gears. Basically, if the next revision of a program is slower at doing the same thing as a rpevious version, you wouldn't mark it "stable" and release it, guess microsoft still dont manage their code properly.

[InnocentBystander]

Oh and fucking breaking EAX. Thanks microshaft.

Err.. it doesn't appear to be broken for me. I don't have the nifty little x-fi console dealie, but all the options are still there.

[Resinence]

The arguments against windows Vista are nearly copy pastes of the complaints against XP, except switch the massive vista delays with "new operating system coming just a few years after the last one!"

Windows XP was a clear improvement over Win9X, which is what most people were using at the time, with a completely new core system and better memory management among other things. Vista is mostly the same kernel with some new features that runs worse even with the new features disabled. Besides, people complaining about a previous window's doesn't make the current complaints any less valid, asshole.

[Resinence]

Oh and fucking breaking EAX. Thanks microshaft.

Err.. it doesn't appear to be broken for me. I don't have the nifty little x-fi console dealie, but all the options are still there.

I should have noted, OpenAL still works fine. While d3d Positional effects have been crippled due to sound architecture changes.

[Ace Pace]

Because thats memory that could be used for other things, like Crysis

Do you have any idea how memory management works? Non used data gets paged to disk. All that fancy Aero stuff that lives in RAM? Gets paged. What do you think happens when you load up Crysis on your WindowsXP computer, alt-tab and load another memory heavy program?

And considering the Vista Kernel is WinNT5.2,

*snort*. I'll quote wikipedia simply because it's a nice compiliation and linking to several dozen MSDN articles on this would take too long.

EDIT:Park one,Part two and Part three of Mark Russinovich's cover of the Vista kernel. This is just barebones stuff.

EDIT2:Microsofts white paper on Kernel enhancements in Vista and Windows Server 2008,

There really is no reason why a stripped down Vista (Aero off, services disabled, indexing off etc... basically stripped down to what XP can do) should use so much more memory and clock cycles than the same machine on XP.

And, suprise, it doesn't. Most Vista benchmarks I've seen either show identical preformance, or near identical, with the key issue nearly ALWAYS being Graphic drivers. Do you realise that all the fancy stuff is paged to disk when games run?

I don't know why people just seem to accept that it should use more resources after (apparently) a complete rewrite of many core programs.

New features require more RAM? Duh?

I don't see OS X needing double the requirements every release.

OSX gets a new incremental release every year, and I don't notice anyone saying it can be easily ran with 512MB, infact, everyone seems to say that throwing more RAM OSXs way is better. Also, OSX is 'speeding up' due to moving more of the fancy animation effects onto the graphics card. It's still taking up more power, just in another peice of hardware.

And the built in DRM and Trusted Computing big brotherware really grinds my gears.

You do realise the media DRM only goes into operation when shock, you're playing trusted content media? Do you imagine it's somehow insidiously running at all times and scanning your brainwaves for piracy?

Basically, if the next revision of a program is slower at doing the same thing as a rpevious version, you wouldn't mark it "stable" and release it, guess microsoft still dont manage their code properly.

Basically, if the next version of the program offers MORE then the previous version, then suprise, it demands higher requirments.

[Resinence]

Because thats memory that could be used for other things, like Crysis

You might find this hard to believe, but modern computers have this amazing ability to page out unneeded stuff from physical memory to run your other stuff when it is needed.

Free RAM is wasted RAM.

While thats true, window's has never been spectactular at doing so. And theres still a performance hit when a game is reading off the hard drive, which also has the page file/swap partition.

I have Vista on this machine now, and have used windows for years. But the whole notion of Vista being immune to complaints simply because it's the new windows is rediculous. People just -expect- the next windows to run worse than the old one. Hey, my new car is less economical than my old one, it's the same but it has video screens. It still runs worse even with them off but it's ok because it's newer and better, plus it has this cool multicoloured reflective paint!

[General Zod]

Because thats memory that could be used for other things, like Crysis

You might find this hard to believe, but modern computers have this amazing ability to page out unneeded stuff from physical memory to run your other stuff when it is needed.

Free RAM is wasted RAM.

While thats true, window's has never been spectactular at doing so. And theres still a performance hit when a game is reading off the hard drive, which also has the page file/swap partition.

I have Vista on this machine now, and have used windows for years. But the whole notion of Vista being immune to complaints simply because it's the new windows is rediculous. People just -expect- the next windows to run worse than the old one. Hey, my new car is less economical than my old one, it's the same but it has video screens. It still runs worse even with them off but it's ok because it's newer and better, plus it has this cool multicoloured reflective paint!

Nice strawman. But by all means, please point out where people are saying Vista should be immune to complaints? Oh wait, they aren't. They're just saying if you want to complain about it come up with something that doesn't apply to every single new operating system upgrade since Windows 95.

[Ace Pace]

While thats true, window's has never been spectactular at doing so. And theres still a performance hit when a game is reading off the hard drive, which also has the page file/swap partition.

And thats Vista's fault how? If you have your pageFile/swap partition on the same drive as the game, you would expect there to be I/O competition. Infact, with Vista's priorities I/O you'd expect this to go down.

I have Vista on this machine now, and have used windows for years. But the whole notion of Vista being immune to complaints simply because it's the new windows is rediculous. People just -expect- the next windows to run worse than the old one. Hey, my new car is less economical than my old one, it's the same but it has video screens. It still runs worse even with them off but it's ok because it's newer and better, plus it has this cool multicoloured reflective paint!

Vista is not immune to complaints and has several issues, but knock it for the faults it has, not for imagined complaints like Trusted computing 'big brother' syndrome.

[Resinence]

Ok admittedly I got carried away with the bashing as I often do.

Do you have any idea how memory management works? Non used data gets paged to disk. All that fancy Aero stuff that lives in RAM? Gets paged. What do you think happens when you load up Crysis on your WindowsXP computer, alt-tab and load another memory heavy program?

While this helps, it doesn't handwave away the fact that aero uses 5x the memory of Beryl. And isn't going to be paged when you're doing anything but fullscreen applications that don't use the interface.

And, suprise, it doesn't. Most Vista benchmarks I've seen either show identical preformance, or near identical, with the key issue nearly ALWAYS being Graphic drivers. Do you realise that all the fancy stuff is paged to disk when games run?

While it's true vista does general work faster in some cases, better for gaming, it is not.



I know it seems like nitpicking, but that 10-15% in performance can mean the difference between playable and frustrating in some of the games about to be released.

*snort*. I'll quote wikipedia simply because it's a nice compiliation and linking to several dozen MSDN articles on this would take too long.

EDIT:Part one,Part two and Part three of Mark Russinovich's cover of the Vista kernel. This is just barebones stuff.

EDIT2:Microsofts white paper on Kernel enhancements in Vista and Windows Server 2008,

And yet even with everything turned off it still fails to produce any noticeable performance improvement over XP and managing to be worse unless you're hardcore at Office and browsing the web, especially for gamers.

OSX gets a new incremental release every year, and I don't notice anyone saying it can be easily ran with 512MB, infact, everyone seems to say that throwing more RAM OSXs way is better.

Conceded, no one is going to argue that more RAM doesn't help performance.

Also, OSX is 'speeding up' due to moving more of the fancy animation effects onto the graphics card. It's still taking up more power, just in another peice of hardware.

This is one of the things I have a problem with, aero was promised to do the same thing for windows, yet CPU intensive tasks like file compression show no improvement at all.

New features require more RAM? Duh?

True, but why does aero use so much more memory than quartz extreme or beryl when it actually does less if not for sloppy coding.

Rolling Eyes You do realise the media DRM only goes into operation when shock, you're playing trusted content media? Do you imagine it's somehow insidiously running at all times and scanning your brainwaves for piracy? Rolling Eyes

Heh, I probably shouldn't have used "big brotherware", I don't actually believe that microsoft is reading my emails etc. I just dislike archaic DRM schemes in general.

Basically, if the next version of the program offers MORE then the previous version, then suprise, it demands higher requirments.

This isn't always true, I find it hard to believe that the old windows code was so perfect that they couldn't improve it at all to try and make up for resources lost to new features. Though they managed to break even in a few areas and it's never more than 5-10% performance loss, I guess thats something to commend.

And thats Vista's fault how? If you have your pageFile/swap partition on the same drive as the game, you would expect there to be I/O competition. Infact, with Vista's priorities I/O you'd expect this to go down.

Most that loss would be at startup or alt-tab. As the game is running normally, it shouldn't make a difference.

Conceded.

Also, tangent: you should put your page file on the most used partition of the least used disk, rather than giving it its own partition. That way, the drive heads have less seek time to get back and forth from it and your data.

I don't have my page file on the same disk as my software/OS, one of the first thing gamers do is move it of course.

Ridiculous. I, not e. Anyway, yeah, that would be ridiculous. Of course it can have complaints, but those complaints also aren't immune to counter arguments. Its resource usage is probably bigger, sure, but it also has a lot more to offer, and there are more to offer: RAM is pretty cheap, and like we said, in that case, it gets out of the way when not being used thanks to virtual memory, so in practice, it shouldn't be a big deal at all.

Sometimes I don't realise that I'm in a minority that prefers an extremely minimal system that can be extended with what I want later on. Rather than a system that has everything I want (as well as what I don't want), but I never have to worry about setting everthing up.

[General Zod]

While this helps, it doesn't handwave away the fact that aero uses 5x the memory of Beryl. And isn't going to be paged when you're doing anything but fullscreen applications that don't use the interface.

Then don't use Aero? It's a purely optional feature anyways.