Vista may go the way of Millenium
Sanest Florida Man
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 45,989
Likes: 11,772
From: Florida
Originally Posted by Beelzebub
There should be something sooner on the connect site, which does get the alpha builds. I had copies of vista mid 2005.
I miss my 03 CL-S :(
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,140
Likes: 445
From: Washington, DC
I built a system with Vista and I regret it now.
The OS itself runs fine but the driver support for video, audio and mouse are not as good as XP (some features don't work - with new hardware), and I keep running into stupid shit like Windows Media Player not suppressing the screen saver.
The OS itself runs fine but the driver support for video, audio and mouse are not as good as XP (some features don't work - with new hardware), and I keep running into stupid shit like Windows Media Player not suppressing the screen saver.
Thread Starter
Race Director
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,929
Likes: 1,051
From: Long Island, NY
Originally Posted by einsatz
I built a system with Vista and I regret it now.
The OS itself runs fine but the driver support for video, audio and mouse are not as good as XP (some features don't work - with new hardware), and I keep running into stupid shit like Windows Media Player not suppressing the screen saver.
The OS itself runs fine but the driver support for video, audio and mouse are not as good as XP (some features don't work - with new hardware), and I keep running into stupid shit like Windows Media Player not suppressing the screen saver.
Most of the crashes I have seen with vista are because of 3rd party drivers, not the OS itself.
Sanest Florida Man
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 45,989
Likes: 11,772
From: Florida
Originally Posted by Beelzebub
Most of the crashes I have seen with vista are because of 3rd party drivers, not the OS itself.
Especially NVIDIA!
I had an nvidia and creative setup when vista first came out, bad idea!!
When you think about it not everyone had an nvidia setup. Intel still rules the roost when it comes to graphics cause of their integrated graphics and Nvidia and ATi were about 50/50 a year ago in the discrete graphics market so that means Nvidia had ALOT of problems with their drivers in order to get 30% of all crashes!
Last edited by #1 STUNNA; Apr 5, 2008 at 05:02 PM.
Race Director
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,213
Likes: 174
From: Portland, Oregon
Originally Posted by stogie1020
I think I predicted this when Vista first came out( I know, I am sure I am the only one...).
What he hell are the people at MS thinking? dumping this crap on the marketplace? Vista made me explore using Linux, and actually made me open my mind to the thought of an APPLE MAC...
What he hell are the people at MS thinking? dumping this crap on the marketplace? Vista made me explore using Linux, and actually made me open my mind to the thought of an APPLE MAC...
Senior Moderator
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 5,122
Likes: 30
From: Windsor, ON, Canada
I have told every person I know not to install Vista (guess I'm the local IT guy among my friends who want free advice).
Personally, I ventured over to the world of Mac due to the bad reviews of Vista. How sad. Hopefully MS will turn things around and build Windows 7 such that it is 'friendly' like XP but with a little more grace.
Someone mentioned how 'slow' OSes have got over the years. I was one of the first people in my area to get a Pentium system (cost me close to $5k) but with a fast SCSI-2 drive (I still use my 1 gig DEC drive on a back up machine) and I had Windows 3.11 + PC Tools (until they were devoured by Symantec)... ready to work in 40 seconds. I have yet to find a XP / Vista machine to start up even close to 1 minute.
I have a Macbook now (with Leopard) and it takes ~35 seconds to be fully operational and productive from a cold start. So it's taken me about 13 years to get back to productivity in less than a minute on a computer (1994-2007)
I can't wait until it's affordable enough to install the OS into RAM so we can actually have 'instant on' computers.
Personally, I ventured over to the world of Mac due to the bad reviews of Vista. How sad. Hopefully MS will turn things around and build Windows 7 such that it is 'friendly' like XP but with a little more grace.
Someone mentioned how 'slow' OSes have got over the years. I was one of the first people in my area to get a Pentium system (cost me close to $5k) but with a fast SCSI-2 drive (I still use my 1 gig DEC drive on a back up machine) and I had Windows 3.11 + PC Tools (until they were devoured by Symantec)... ready to work in 40 seconds. I have yet to find a XP / Vista machine to start up even close to 1 minute.
I have a Macbook now (with Leopard) and it takes ~35 seconds to be fully operational and productive from a cold start. So it's taken me about 13 years to get back to productivity in less than a minute on a computer (1994-2007)
I can't wait until it's affordable enough to install the OS into RAM so we can actually have 'instant on' computers.
I'm the Firestarter
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,309
Likes: 1,042
Originally Posted by derrick
Someone mentioned how 'slow' OSes have got over the years. I was one of the first people in my area to get a Pentium system (cost me close to $5k) but with a fast SCSI-2 drive (I still use my 1 gig DEC drive on a back up machine) and I had Windows 3.11 + PC Tools (until they were devoured by Symantec)... ready to work in 40 seconds. I have yet to find a XP / Vista machine to start up even close to 1 minute.
My XP laptop wakes from suspend in about the same amount of time. I only reboot once every several days, usually only after I install something. It takes about a minute, but the reboot time is irrelevant. FYI though, I just re-installed XP on my brother's 2-year-old PC and it boots extremely fast, in the order of 3 sec (from power on). Obviously a fresh install boots fast, it depends on how many things you have loaded.
Anyway, that suspend feature's been around how many years? I bet your Mac has the same thing and it works equally well, you should really RTFM.
There's little reason for people to reboot these days, but most users are oblivious to the suspend feature. MS is pushing its use more actively now, so you should see more people using it.
Last edited by Belzebutt; Apr 6, 2008 at 06:59 PM.
Thread Starter
Race Director
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,929
Likes: 1,051
From: Long Island, NY
Originally Posted by Belzebutt
I need to share an amazing inention with you then, it's called "Suspend". My Vista PC is operational and ready to work in about 30 seconds after I resume it. Ok, maybe 5 if I count the time for my bluetooth keyboard to reconnect. That's a few hundred % faster than your MacBook.
My XP laptop wakes from suspend in about the same amount of time. I only reboot once every several days, usually only after I install something. It takes about a minute, but the reboot time is irrelevant. FYI though, I just re-installed XP on my brother's 2-year-old PC and it boots extremely fast, in the order of 3 sec (from power on). Obviously a fresh install boots fast, it depends on how many things you have loaded.
Anyway, that suspend feature's been around how many years? I bet your Mac has the same thing and it works equally well, you should really RTFM.
There's little reason for people to reboot these days, but most users are oblivious to the suspend feature. MS is pushing its use more actively now, so you should see more people using it.
My XP laptop wakes from suspend in about the same amount of time. I only reboot once every several days, usually only after I install something. It takes about a minute, but the reboot time is irrelevant. FYI though, I just re-installed XP on my brother's 2-year-old PC and it boots extremely fast, in the order of 3 sec (from power on). Obviously a fresh install boots fast, it depends on how many things you have loaded.
Anyway, that suspend feature's been around how many years? I bet your Mac has the same thing and it works equally well, you should really RTFM.
There's little reason for people to reboot these days, but most users are oblivious to the suspend feature. MS is pushing its use more actively now, so you should see more people using it.
I put my laptop into hybernation, and it is back up and running in 30 seconds. My work machines I just suspend.
Most people as you said completly shut the machine down every night, I see no need to do that and my only reboots for all my machines are when I have to apply patches (for any os) once a month or so.
Registered but harmless
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 14,888
Likes: 1,164
From: Los Angeles, CA
Originally Posted by I Go To Costco
My laptop came with Vista 
When I scan or need the all-in-one, I have to use the HP laptop (XP) or the Win98SE(!) desktop CPU. We have a Win2000 OS machine too...
Nom Nom Nom Nom
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,801
Likes: 76
From: Universal City
Originally Posted by Billiam
From the perspective of user interaction, I think the thing that pisses off a lot of people is that things seem to have been changed simply for the sake of changing them and not to make them any better. I've come across several things in Vista that take 2x to 4x as many clicks just to get to the same dialog boxes as XP. That's going backwards with a UI, not forwards. I don't care how pretty things look. On the plus side, things like Spotlig...errrr...Instant Search and the searchable Start Menu are definitely improvements.
It works for Microsoft at a marketing level. They want to get computers into every home. So how do they do that? They make it "easy" to use.
Sanest Florida Man
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 45,989
Likes: 11,772
From: Florida
Originally Posted by cTLgo
we still use Windows 2000 at work 
Keeping emos out of
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 6,811
Likes: 1
From: Colorado Springs
Originally Posted by #1 STUNNA
A lot of businesses still do. my restaurant runs on Win2k. I like how if I plug an iPod into the USB port of the touch screen terminal it'll get me back to the Win2k desktop and then i'll bring up the on screen keyboard and start fucking around in the cmd window or trying to get internet access on the terminal (that would be awesome!). I'm gonna fuck around in MMC next time I do that, it passes time during the middle of the day when there's nothing to do!
That's nothing we found a cache of Windows 98 install discs along with a ungodly stack of floppies that we disposed of today. I wanted to bring at least one set home to try out but they were in bad shape.
anyone have an earlier version of Windows than that? come on now..
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,133
Likes: 14,282
Originally Posted by #1 STUNNA
Bish I got three floppies for DOS lying around here some where! I tried to install it but my floppy drive don't work no more 
Sanest Florida Man
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 45,989
Likes: 11,772
From: Florida
Originally Posted by srika
I said Windows fool. I have DOS going back to... 3.3 and up to 6.0
wait your's is older!
But how fast does window 2.0 boot up? Wicked fast doesn't it just like I said the shit gets slower and slower every new version. I should find that video showcasing MinWin which is supposed to be the foundation of Windows 7. In the video the guy also has Windows 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 all running in separate virtual machines and they boot up on modern hard ware in literally about a second but 2.0 is just a little slower than 1.0 and 3.0 is slower than 2.0.
here it is, it's kindof interesting.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NNsS_0wSfoU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NNsS_0wSfoU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Sanest Florida Man
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 45,989
Likes: 11,772
From: Florida
and to go with my post earlier that Windows 7 will NOT be released in 2009 MS says
http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=207100040
Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) is backing off comments by chairman Bill Gates that the next version of Windows could be available as early as next year.
"We are currently in the planning stages for Windows 7 and development is scoped to three years from Windows Vista consumer" general availability, a Microsoft spokesman said in an e-mail Friday to InformationWeek.
Windows Vista was released to consumers in late January 2007. That means Windows 7 would not be released until January 2010, according to Microsoft's statement.
Speaking at a seminar on corporate philanthropy last week in Miami, Gates said his company might ship a new version of its Windows operating system as soon as 2009.
The news agency Reuters quoted Gates as saying that Windows 7 may be released "sometime in the next year or so." That would put the software ahead of the three-year cycle that Microsoft normally works on for OS releases.
Microsoft said Gates may have been referring to trial versions of Windows 7. "As is standard with the release of a new product, we will be releasing early builds of Windows 7 prior to its general availability as a means to gain tester feedback," the spokesman said.
"We're not sharing additional information at this time," the spokesman added.
Microsoft to date has said little about Windows 7, which had been in development under the code name Blackcomb. It was generally believed that the OS would ship in the 2010 time frame.
"We are currently in the planning stages for Windows 7 and development is scoped to three years from Windows Vista consumer" general availability, a Microsoft spokesman said in an e-mail Friday to InformationWeek.
Windows Vista was released to consumers in late January 2007. That means Windows 7 would not be released until January 2010, according to Microsoft's statement.
Speaking at a seminar on corporate philanthropy last week in Miami, Gates said his company might ship a new version of its Windows operating system as soon as 2009.
The news agency Reuters quoted Gates as saying that Windows 7 may be released "sometime in the next year or so." That would put the software ahead of the three-year cycle that Microsoft normally works on for OS releases.
Microsoft said Gates may have been referring to trial versions of Windows 7. "As is standard with the release of a new product, we will be releasing early builds of Windows 7 prior to its general availability as a means to gain tester feedback," the spokesman said.
"We're not sharing additional information at this time," the spokesman added.
Microsoft to date has said little about Windows 7, which had been in development under the code name Blackcomb. It was generally believed that the OS would ship in the 2010 time frame.
The hair says it all
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,566
Likes: 0
From: Manhattan, NYC
I feel like I am one of the few that is fairly unbiased between mac/windows/linux. I enjoy osx/linux and use them all the time but use xp on my main computers because its somewhat light, fast and great driver support. Vista was a train wreck for me, just seemed like XP bloated to hell, almost like ME. Unfortunately they had a streamlined NT kernel (windows 2k) to turn to back then and they don't really have that now. As far as features I really value (journaling filesystem, proliferated 64 bit os to name a few) they didn't pull through as promised so I am doubting the merits of windows 7. Vista feels like it was designed for soccer moms, not people who use computers all the time.
As the family computer guy my verdict is stay with xp. Or try your hand at Ubuntu
As the family computer guy my verdict is stay with xp. Or try your hand at Ubuntu
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,133
Likes: 14,282
so over the past several months I have been arguing on and off with a coworker who has Vista on a Dell E1705 CD 2.0 w/ 2GB of RAM. I have a very similar comp, just a diff graphics card. Anyways, I always told him Vista was so slow, etc etc. Now, his computer came with Vista loaded and that's what he's had on there. So, there was no way for him to have been able to tell if XP was faster on that machine. And, vice versa for me, since I'd never tried Vista on mine.
He always told me Vista was fast and fine, no problems, etc. Anyways he installed SP1 last week, and after that, his video started shaking for a minute or two, every now and then. He has an ATI X1300. Apparently it was a driver conflict - he is quite technical (and very anal about things like upgrades etc) and trust me there is no way in hell I ever imagined he would go back to XP. It really seemed like hell would freeze over before that would ever happen. So he checked out all the details and tried to get the video working - he couldn't do it.
Over the weekend, he reformatted and installed XP. And today he told me that his machine is "SMOKING FAST" now. He was quite surprised himself. Furthermore, going back to XP cleared up 18GB (!!!!) of HD space. He is very happy. I tried to keep my ridicule to a minimum, since he is a bit of the sensitive type. I didn't even crack a chuckle. But it was tough, lol.
Btw in case you missed it, HP, Dell, and Lenovo have all chosen to extend their support and sale of XP into 2009. And, I don't see myself going to Vista anytime soon. I think the next Windows upgrade I will consider, will be what comes after Vista, which will hopefully be a more streamlined (read: not bloated to all hell) version that fine tunes XP into a more secure platform.
He always told me Vista was fast and fine, no problems, etc. Anyways he installed SP1 last week, and after that, his video started shaking for a minute or two, every now and then. He has an ATI X1300. Apparently it was a driver conflict - he is quite technical (and very anal about things like upgrades etc) and trust me there is no way in hell I ever imagined he would go back to XP. It really seemed like hell would freeze over before that would ever happen. So he checked out all the details and tried to get the video working - he couldn't do it.
Over the weekend, he reformatted and installed XP. And today he told me that his machine is "SMOKING FAST" now. He was quite surprised himself. Furthermore, going back to XP cleared up 18GB (!!!!) of HD space. He is very happy. I tried to keep my ridicule to a minimum, since he is a bit of the sensitive type. I didn't even crack a chuckle. But it was tough, lol.
Btw in case you missed it, HP, Dell, and Lenovo have all chosen to extend their support and sale of XP into 2009. And, I don't see myself going to Vista anytime soon. I think the next Windows upgrade I will consider, will be what comes after Vista, which will hopefully be a more streamlined (read: not bloated to all hell) version that fine tunes XP into a more secure platform.
Sanest Florida Man
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 45,989
Likes: 11,772
From: Florida
Originally Posted by srika
so over the past several months I have been arguing on and off with a coworker who has Vista on a Dell E1705 CD 2.0 w/ 2GB of RAM. I have a very similar comp, just a diff graphics card. Anyways, I always told him Vista was so slow, etc etc. Now, his computer came with Vista loaded and that's what he's had on there. So, there was no way for him to have been able to tell if XP was faster on that machine. And, vice versa for me, since I'd never tried Vista on mine.
He always told me Vista was fast and fine, no problems, etc. Anyways he installed SP1 last week, and after that, his video started shaking for a minute or two, every now and then. He has an ATI X1300. Apparently it was a driver conflict - he is quite technical (and very anal about things like upgrades etc) and trust me there is no way in hell I ever imagined he would go back to XP. It really seemed like hell would freeze over before that would ever happen. So he checked out all the details and tried to get the video working - he couldn't do it.
Over the weekend, he reformatted and installed XP. And today he told me that his machine is "SMOKING FAST" now. He was quite surprised himself. Furthermore, going back to XP cleared up 18GB (!!!!) of HD space. He is very happy. I tried to keep my ridicule to a minimum, since he is a bit of the sensitive type. I didn't even crack a chuckle. But it was tough, lol.
Btw in case you missed it, HP, Dell, and Lenovo have all chosen to extend their support and sale of XP into 2009. And, I don't see myself going to Vista anytime soon. I think the next Windows upgrade I will consider, will be what comes after Vista, which will hopefully be a more streamlined (read: not bloated to all hell) version that fine tunes XP into a more secure platform.
He always told me Vista was fast and fine, no problems, etc. Anyways he installed SP1 last week, and after that, his video started shaking for a minute or two, every now and then. He has an ATI X1300. Apparently it was a driver conflict - he is quite technical (and very anal about things like upgrades etc) and trust me there is no way in hell I ever imagined he would go back to XP. It really seemed like hell would freeze over before that would ever happen. So he checked out all the details and tried to get the video working - he couldn't do it.
Over the weekend, he reformatted and installed XP. And today he told me that his machine is "SMOKING FAST" now. He was quite surprised himself. Furthermore, going back to XP cleared up 18GB (!!!!) of HD space. He is very happy. I tried to keep my ridicule to a minimum, since he is a bit of the sensitive type. I didn't even crack a chuckle. But it was tough, lol.
Btw in case you missed it, HP, Dell, and Lenovo have all chosen to extend their support and sale of XP into 2009. And, I don't see myself going to Vista anytime soon. I think the next Windows upgrade I will consider, will be what comes after Vista, which will hopefully be a more streamlined (read: not bloated to all hell) version that fine tunes XP into a more secure platform.
