Vista failed... (article)

Merry Xmas all.

Interesting read... plus most games run slower on Vista.

Article

Im waiting for Windows 7

(anyone want to buy my Vista Ultimate, lol)

Merry Xmas all.

Interesting read... plus most games run slower on Vista.

Article

Im waiting for Windows 7

(anyone want to buy my Vista Ultimate, lol)

FelipeInside

i think vista is pretty damn awsome. but thats just me. and there are some games that do run better on vista then xp. tes4 oblivion being one of them

Merry Xmas all.

Interesting read... plus most games run slower on Vista.

Article

Im waiting for Windows 7

(anyone want to buy my Vista Ultimate, lol)

FelipeInside

As already said, the artical was over done over 3 months ago (by a complete plumb i might add who uses 1 year out of date supposed facts etc), the links in the artical about performance compairing vista SP1 and XP SP3 were done with only 1gig of ram aswell and on pre release versions of the packs that were almost half a year from completion (the vista one anyway) which is kinda of dumb as it's a known fact that vista needs at least 2gigs minimum, from that point (well really from the 1st paragraph) the artical lost all credibility due to this.Stoner-Pimp

Of course it failed. DX10+ LIES+ DX10 hardware+ no DX10 games= FAIL. At least that's the way I see it. Even if overall it is better than XP (I don't have Vista), it looks like for games it isn't.

Not to mention they'll probably release Windows 7 next year, so if that's so, it makes you wonder why did they bother with Vista in the first place?

Of course it failed. DX10+ LIES+ DX10 hardware+ no DX10 games= FAIL. At least that's the way I see it. Even if overall it is better than XP (I don't have Vista), it looks like for games it isn't.

Not to mention they'll probably release Windows 7 next year, so if that's so, it makes you wonder why did they bother with Vista in the first place?

not_wanted

[QUOTE="Stoner-Pimp"]As already said, the artical was over done over 3 months ago (by a complete plumb i might add who uses 1 year out of date supposed facts etc), the links in the artical about performance compairing vista SP1 and XP SP3 were done with only 1gig of ram aswell and on pre release versions of the packs that were almost half a year from completion (the vista one anyway) which is kinda of dumb as it's a known fact that vista needs at least 2gigs minimum, from that point (well really from the 1st paragraph) the artical lost all credibility due to this.Makari

Turning off Superfetch does help with Ram, (all it does is pre-load programs so they start-up faster or something, but luckily it can be shutoff almost no less then two clicks..;))

-

I Seen someone say that Vista uses 3 Gb of ram,I might of Misread what he said but if that's what he meant then thats just a ridiculously over exaggerating.

I use Vista 64, 2nd hard-drive with XP/& Ubuntu. I use 700mb of Ram even after more then a day of uptime with Vista [x], XP uses 500mb, Ubuntu uses 200mb on my PC.:?:lol::|

I see little to no difference at all with my games even the some that can run on Linux, fps is min at best.

-

Driver support: Vista- I've had no problem finding drivers for everything I own.

-

Over all my time with both OS's XP has gave me more Crap over the years then Vista has ever even thought of.

is Vista the best OS? no. does it use more Resources? yes. is Vista still a good OS? yes.

-

I Use Vista and I love it, If Those Bandwagon Fanboys still feel the need to bash Vista more power to them I guess, It just seems Pathetic, Share your opinion and get over it already...:roll:

-

I'll Buy the next OS as well, just like I always do I got vista I love it, I'll get Windows 7 and I love it, I'm not gonna sit around bashing on something I don't use or have never used that just seems like a sad waste of time to be honest.:P

plus most games run slower on Vista.FelipeInside

Games "I" have found to run better under Vista.

Fallout 3 (far less loading stutter during open world travel)

Crysis (slightly higher FPS under same DX9 settings)

Spiderman WOS (less stutter and frame rate dips)

I think it has to do with the virtualization of memory, Vista automatically allows your GPU to utilize ram as vram; possibly benefiting games that utilize streaming if you have plenty of memory.

Vista isn't horrible, but it could definitely be better. For one, I'd expect my new system to respond INSTANTLY no matter what, given how advanced the hardware is supposed to be. It feels a bit sluggish. It also forgets my folder settings sometimes, which can be irritating. There's also the issue with drivers-or lack thereof-for some of my more off-the-wall PC input devices, most of which either aren't updated for Vista or aren't updated for 64-bit Vista. However, I do like Aero, and DX10 support can be nice sometimes. Oh, and let's not forget being able to use Windows Update WITHOUT Internet Exploiter. One more thing-I've never had to deal with malware on my Vista system, which I most certainly CANNOT say for the XP system. XP...well, it's just a bloated Windows 2000 to me. I also have a 2002-era system loaded with XP Home, and guess what? It feels sluggish on that system, perhaps even moreso than Vista does on my current system. Aside from not being able to install X-Fi drivers under 2000, lack of new Windows Updates, and inability to use more than two CPUs/cores in the Professional release, I see no real reason to go with XP. When I tested out Ubuntu 8.10, though, that's when things changed. I suddenly saw no need for Windows anymore with one major exception-games. Unfortunately, Wine/CrossOver Games doesn't have 100% compatibility-fortunately for MS and my copy of Windows Vista Ultimate x64. The OS is fairly responsive (even with things like Compiz Fusion running), stable, the whole package management system concept (apt-get in this case) is pretty sweet, and most of all, it's free. Perhaps Windows 7 will bring about some overall refinement of responsiveness and resource usage (yes, I know that it's SuperFetch that eats up half my RAM). I already like the improved taskbar, for starters. However, I do expect substantially discounted upgrade pricing given the fact that I paid a hefty 190 US$ or so for Vista Ultimate x64 OEM, which would have been 400 US$ (!) or so with a retail version.NamelessPlayer

The way Vista constantly forgets my folder settings drives me up the wall. I keep resetting the damned things to display a detail list and Vista rests it 3-4 days later. Further, it forgets the default info I want displayed, namely the file size and the last date modified. Instead it keeps replacing those with some stupid 5 star rating scheme and artist and track number listings. I didn't think my crappy Word 2007 documents were worth a 1-5 star rating system. Oh well.

Word also keeps screwing up. I keep telling it to default to Canadian English for the dictionary, but it refuses to do so. It either reverts back to American English or tries to switch to Canadian French. Stupid thing.

[QUOTE="NamelessPlayer"]bogaty

You wouldn't be using a Program like Ccleaner would you? I had the Same problem you had with my Folders View setting Changing, Later I found out it was because of Ccleaner cleaning my folder view order.;) Now I have yet seen a folder that has changed on me.

Honestly there should just be a Vista bashing sticky here. It would make things alot easier.artiedeadat40

Artie I hate stickies. Let them rant. It says more about them then anything else. I'm with the other fellow; I use and like Vista and I'll use and like Windows 7 when it comes out (after it gets over it's release issues).

Turning off Superfetch does help with Ram

Krayzie_3334

Thats so FETCH!

But seriously, Vista works fine, and if you got XP thats fine too.

I have Vista since last Christmas and can't load Sims 2 on it. I keep getting the error message tsData\Res\Sims3D\Objects08.package. It's driving me crazy. I had it on my desktop on windows 2000. I've recently upgraded the desktop to XP and the same error message appears. Any ideas/solutions, please?

Personally I like using Vista, I also liked using XP.

However at the business level having to upgrade the current crappy computers to be able to do in Vista what can already do in XP does seem to be a bad business decision.

For that reason alone companies have not embraced Vista and therefore M$ have not been able to sell mass licences - which goes against their whole business model for an OS.

Personally I like using Vista, I also liked using XP.

However at the business level having to upgrade the current crappy computers to be able to do in Vista what can already do in XP does seem to be a bad business decision.

For that reason alone companies have not embraced Vista and therefore M$ have not been able to sell mass licences - which goes against their whole business model for an OS.

Fandangle

Pretty much. Just look at the Valve hardware survey: something like 80% of respondents are still using XP. The government and big companies aren't embracing Vista either.

I found Vista pretty, but slow and bloated, and only marginally better than XP in terms of features. If I had to pay for my copy, I would have been severely disappointed. Moreover, my sound card and tv tuner weren't compatible, and I'm not wasting my money to upgrade when both of them work perfectly in XP, so that pretty much made my decision for me to switch back to XP. DX10 is also a big flop as most games now are multiplatform and therefore DX9, and DX10 is just an afterthought at best. I also hated the performance hit in games, which was more noticeable in some cases, Crysis being a good example.

It's not that Vista doesn't work, it just doesn't work anywhere near as well as XP. I'm also not a fan of the forced upgrade agenda. Why am I just expected to throw my old hardware, like my TV tuner, in the trash? I never had to do that when switching from 2000 to XP, and I don't recall anythign like that when switching from 98 to 2000. A good OS is compatible with everything, even old hardware.

Most (old) benchmarks show XP ahead of Vista. Old, yes, but I can't find anything recent & reliable showing Vista ahead of XP. Everyone here's putting down these old benchmarks and saying "don't believe what you read, vista is good" which is a bit ironic, since they're not showing any benchmarks to prove otherwise and all we have to go on is their word. Simply invalidating evidence that shows vista to be worse than XP, doesn't really give you a lot of confidence in the system - you need to show that it's considerably better in order to justify the upgrade.F1_2004

Given the exact same amount of RAM, XP does seem to run faster than Vista. Royas

Don't believe everything you read, Vista runs just fine.--Anna--

Exactly!!! For example... I don't believe you.

I had Vista, it sucked. I upgraded to XP, everything runs better. I don't need an article to tell me what I know from first hand experience.

have both. Xp is a better performer and Vista looks better...For gaming I usually stick with XP.

Only time shift was better with Vista.3D mark is better on XP also, same ram same psu, same gpu and same cpu

[QUOTE="--Anna--"]Don't believe everything you read, Vista runs just fine.Johnny_Rock

Exactly!!! For example... I don't believe you.

I had Vista, it sucked. I upgraded to XP, everything runs better. I don't need an article to tell me what I know from first hand experience.