My Experiences with Vista So Far... I Like It


K

Kevin K4VD

I've been reading the posts heavily the past few days and thought I'd throw
in my 2 cents. I've been a user of Windows since Windows 3.1 in both a
support role and a general user role. In each version, I have found things
to infuriate me and things that just worked (so I didn't think about them).

For the system, I purchased a Dell XPS 410 with Vista Home Premium. It has
the 2.66 GHz Core2Duo, 4 GB ram and two drives in RAID 0 for 586 GB (as
shown in drive properties). I replaced the nVidia 7300 with a 7950 GT KO 512
MB video card. My overall performance score is 5.5.

The issues I've had are very minor and I've found ways to work around most
of them:
1) Initial performance score was 3.0 because of the video card. Not a good
place to save a buck if you are expecting Vista to look right. The 7950 has
made a real difference in general feel and playback of DVDs.
2) Windows Media Player jumps when playing music. Strangely, it plays DVDs
fine. I eventually went to WinAmp (free version) for audio playback. No
jumping.
3) Things are not where I expect them to be compared with XP. With a little
digging and reading one of those "Getting Started" books I think I've been
oriented into the Vista way of doing things. At least it is a start.
4) After installing Macromedia Dreamweaver 8, I lost Windows Help. Someone
in the group sent me the fix. Macromedia plans to support Vista fully in
future (pay-for, not upgrade) versions of Dreameweaver and Fireworks.
5) Some applications that take over full screen such as Flight Simulator X
and Media Player's visualizations don't work well with dual monitors. Once I
turn off the second monitor (in the nVidia software) things go back to
normal.
6) Some old applications will just not work well or at all. This isn't
unexpected. Unfortunately for me, they are old enough that they probably
won't be upgraded for Vista. One example is Chessmaster 9000 which I used
for the tutorials and practice. I can't seem to use my old Rio Cali. There
are no Vista drivers for it and it is not recogniced as a generic mass
storage device.
7) I bought 4 GB ram but only 3 GB is seen. This is not Vista I think but
the fact that I got the 32 bit instead of the 64 bit version. However, I
understand the 64 bit version of Vista has its own problems finding drivers
and such.
8) There are so many configuration options available it is easy to get lost
or forget how you turned something on when you decide later you don't like
it. My specific situation is with an application - but because of this, I've
been very careful about customizing Vista.

The good things:
1) Dell's support via on-line chat has been fine. They have usually had
answers to each of my questions or were able to point me in the right
direction.
2) The machine is fast. Compared to my old machine (dual 850 MHz P-III
running XP), it will run circles around it.
3) I feel like XP, which I've become quite familiar with, is lurking under a
new user interface. This isn't a bad thing to me. XP has been a great OS.
While I have to do many things differently in Vista, the outcome is usually
what I would expect when running XP. I've never felt like I've given up
anything.
4) I use an Intuos3 Wacom tablet. It was a kluge with Windows XP but seems
to be fully integrated into Vista. Maybe because tablet PCs are well
supported within Vista. I'm able to make full use of the Journal and find
myself "writing" on the tablet rather than typing into dialog boxes more
often than not. In fact, much of this post was witnessing the tablet. Vista
seems to have added some functionality to the Wacom tablet.
5) I've used IE 7 for quite a while so there no complaints with it in Vista.
It certainly seems to ask "are you sure?" much more often but I guess that
is all about the security.

I have no doubt that there all be many updates posted for Vista overtime.
That's just the nature of the beast I think. I'm also excited about new
applications that will be coming out that will take advantage of Vista.

I'm sorry to hear so many people are having problems with Vista. I suspect
there are a number of reasons for it. The only advice I can offer, it is a
new OS, it will get better (support & statbility), and people will get used
to it enough where they won't think about the OS and just concentrate on the
applications or getting things done.

Kevin
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

Daz

I'm sorry to hear so many people are having problems with Vista. I suspect
there are a number of reasons for it. The only advice I can offer, it is a
new OS, it will get better (support & statbility), and people will get
used to it enough where they won't think about the OS and just concentrate
on the applications or getting things done.

Kevin

Well, I've not had Vista for too long either, and apart from one or two
things that were easily sorted I have to say i like it as well. One or two
programs wouldn't work at all, but just setting them to run under Windows XP
compatibility mode does the trick.

Daz.
 
S

Spocks Buddy

Vista stinks... start practicing holding your breath for inceasing amounts
of time...

trust me.. you will need it...

Please post back when you are frustrated and disgusted by vista.. it will
nice to hear your rant.
 
R

Rock

Spocks Buddy said:
Vista stinks... start practicing holding your breath for inceasing amounts
of time...

trust me.. you will need it...

Please post back when you are frustrated and disgusted by vista.. it will
nice to hear your rant.

Hmmm..Ultimate runs fine here, has been since November with RTM on a nearly
5yr old system, P4 2.53Ghz with 1GB RAM.

Why would anyone trust you; you're spreading FUD.
 
S

Spocks Buddy

Let me find that "Vista is working fine on my computer therefore nothing is
wrong with it"
Medal.... its on a site somewhere...

you deserve it 100%

its you spreading FUD and you are a danger to society. So put a sock in it.
 
L

Leythos

Hmmm..Ultimate runs fine here, has been since November with RTM on a
nearly 5yr old system, P4 2.53Ghz with 1GB RAM.

I have a 3.2ghz Hyperthreaded, 2GB RAM, 512MB Video, system that is a
couple years old and XP runs fine, fast, clean, stable. Vista Business,
using it's down drivers and from MS Update, runs slower, a LOT slower.

Same experience on a Dual Xeon 3.0ghz CPU system with 4GB RAM.....
 
Ad

Advertisements

G

Guest

I have a 3.2Ghz HT P4, 1Gig RAM, 256MB 7600 GT Videocard system that runs
great on XP - Vista even since the beta builds can't handle motherboards with
the SiS 661FX Chipset - problems with the SiS AGP Driver, Major graphical
corruption in all games including the built in card games..and ive search the
net for a solution and found there are a number of other users with the exact
same problem.. would have thought there would be a fix out by now over a year
later since I discovered and reported it!?!
 
L

Leythos

I have a 3.2Ghz HT P4, 1Gig RAM, 256MB 7600 GT Videocard system that runs
great on XP - Vista even since the beta builds can't handle motherboards with
the SiS 661FX Chipset - problems with the SiS AGP Driver, Major graphical
corruption in all games including the built in card games..and ive search the
net for a solution and found there are a number of other users with the exact
same problem.. would have thought there would be a fix out by now over a year
later since I discovered and reported it!?!

All of my systems, except this laptop, are Intel motherboards or ASUS
workstation/server class motherboards, and I'm unable to find increased
performance on any of them with vista.
 
M

mikeyhsd

that's news, was unaware that sis was owned by microsoft so they are not responsible for providing drivers for their products.



(e-mail address removed)



I have a 3.2Ghz HT P4, 1Gig RAM, 256MB 7600 GT Videocard system that runs
great on XP - Vista even since the beta builds can't handle motherboards with
the SiS 661FX Chipset - problems with the SiS AGP Driver, Major graphical
corruption in all games including the built in card games..and ive search the
net for a solution and found there are a number of other users with the exact
same problem.. would have thought there would be a fix out by now over a year
later since I discovered and reported it!?!
 
S

Spocks Buddy

youve got a lot to learn kid..

lets start with lesson one, repeat after me....


Vista is slower than XP, vista is slower than xp, vista is slower than xp.......


that's news, was unaware that sis was owned by microsoft so they are not responsible for providing drivers for their products.



(e-mail address removed)



I have a 3.2Ghz HT P4, 1Gig RAM, 256MB 7600 GT Videocard system that runs
great on XP - Vista even since the beta builds can't handle motherboards with
the SiS 661FX Chipset - problems with the SiS AGP Driver, Major graphical
corruption in all games including the built in card games..and ive search the
net for a solution and found there are a number of other users with the exact
same problem.. would have thought there would be a fix out by now over a year
later since I discovered and reported it!?!
 
M

MICHAEL

* Leythos:
I have a 3.2ghz Hyperthreaded, 2GB RAM, 512MB Video, system that is a
couple years old and XP runs fine, fast, clean, stable. Vista Business,
using it's down drivers and from MS Update, runs slower, a LOT slower.

Same experience on a Dual Xeon 3.0ghz CPU system with 4GB RAM.....

I have almost the exact same specs that you list for your first computer
on a Gateway laptop, the M675 that I had customized over two years ago.
Except the video is 256MB. It's a beast of a laptop that was never meant
to be truly mobile. No battery life, it gets hot, it's heavy for a laptop with
a 17.1 screen and full keyboard.
But, when I'm at home, it has become my main machine. It is rock solid and
I have never had a problem with it. Anyway, I have Vista Ultimate and WinXP Pro
installed on it, it is where I make most of my comparisons. Even though Vista
has become my full-time OS, I still find that in some things, XP is faster. They
both are stable and reliable for me. In general day to day stuff, they seem about
equal. Which is where I start having a problem with Vista. They aren't supposed
to be equal, Vista should do much better and do things that give users a reason
that makes upgrading worth it... and not just a prettier GUI. If someone were to
ask me what they can do with Vista that they can't with XP, there really aren't too many
compelling things to tell them. If they were to ask me, well can Vista at least do my
stuff faster? I'd have to say maybe, or maybe your stuff won't work at all on Vista.
I could tell them about Vista's backup- of course, if they don't have Ultimate they don't
get CompletePC backup. I would end up telling them to use Acronis TrueImage, even
if they did have CompletePC... and Acronis can be used on XP, anyway.

I could mention DX 10, but many users aren't PC game playing users, and an even
smaller percentage play the types of game that DX 10 will make you go, "wow".
Besides that, are there any DX 10 games out? Is Vista more secure? Maybe.
But, as I and many others said during the betas, that may not mean much because
a lot of users will turn off the annoying UAC. System Restore seems to be better
in Vista, then again, I'll never trust it as much as I do Acronis. What about Windows Mail?
It blows. I want even get started on that one. Sidebar? Google and Yahoo already have
that. Better search? Maybe. But Google Desktop, Copernic Desktop, and Windows Desktop
search are good products, too.

All the things that we could list that are supposedly improvements will really come
down to one thing in consumers' minds when they pass judgment on Vista- If it's faster
than XP. Maybe. Will they bellow "wow" as it blow their socks off? Doubtful, especially
once they get over the "prettiness".... and, you can get that prettiness in XP, too.

Does Vista suck? I don't think so, it's as stable or a bit more than XP. Is that really
a compelling enough reason to upgrade to Vista? Not unless you just have to have
a new computer. Or, you are a new tech/stuff junkie (silly arse) like me. Most aren't,
and I believe a lot of those users will be underwhelmed by Vista. Of course, Vista
will do well, Microsoft is a monopoly and folks will continue to buy new computers,
and the user base is so much larger than when XP came out so long ago. With such a
large gap in between OS releases, it really is silly to compare sales figures.

Anyway, thanks for "listening".


-Michael
 
Ad

Advertisements

L

Leythos

* Leythos:

I have almost the exact same specs that you list for your first computer
on a Gateway laptop, the M675 that I had customized over two years ago.
Except the video is 256MB. It's a beast of a laptop that was never
meant to be truly mobile. No battery life, it gets hot, it's heavy for
a laptop with a 17.1 screen and full keyboard.
But, when I'm at home, it has become my main machine. It is rock solid
and I have never had a problem with it. Anyway, I have Vista Ultimate
and WinXP Pro installed on it, it is where I make most of my
comparisons. Even though Vista has become my full-time OS, I still
find that in some things, XP is faster. They both are stable and
reliable for me. In general day to day stuff, they seem about equal.
Which is where I start having a problem with Vista. They aren't
supposed to be equal, Vista should do much better and do things that
give users a reason that makes upgrading worth it... and not just a
prettier GUI. If someone were to ask me what they can do with Vista
that they can't with XP, there really aren't too many compelling things
to tell them. If they were to ask me, well can Vista at least do my
stuff faster? I'd have to say maybe, or maybe your stuff won't work at
all on Vista. I could tell them about Vista's backup- of course, if they
don't have Ultimate they don't get CompletePC backup. I would end up
telling them to use Acronis TrueImage, even if they did have
CompletePC... and Acronis can be used on XP, anyway.

I could mention DX 10, but many users aren't PC game playing users, and
an even smaller percentage play the types of game that DX 10 will make
you go, "wow". Besides that, are there any DX 10 games out? Is Vista
more secure? Maybe. But, as I and many others said during the betas,
that may not mean much because a lot of users will turn off the annoying
UAC. System Restore seems to be better in Vista, then again, I'll never
trust it as much as I do Acronis. What about Windows Mail? It blows. I
want even get started on that one. Sidebar? Google and Yahoo already
have that. Better search? Maybe. But Google Desktop, Copernic
Desktop, and Windows Desktop search are good products, too.

All the things that we could list that are supposedly improvements will
really come down to one thing in consumers' minds when they pass
judgment on Vista- If it's faster than XP. Maybe. Will they bellow
"wow" as it blow their socks off? Doubtful, especially once they get
over the "prettiness".... and, you can get that prettiness in XP, too.

Does Vista suck? I don't think so, it's as stable or a bit more than
XP. Is that really a compelling enough reason to upgrade to Vista? Not
unless you just have to have a new computer. Or, you are a new
tech/stuff junkie (silly arse) like me. Most aren't, and I believe a
lot of those users will be underwhelmed by Vista. Of course, Vista will
do well, Microsoft is a monopoly and folks will continue to buy new
computers, and the user base is so much larger than when XP came out so
long ago. With such a large gap in between OS releases, it really is
silly to compare sales figures.

Anyway, thanks for "listening".

We're seeing the same things - and thanks for the rational discussion
about it.

I like to call my laptop a "Luggable" or a "mobile workstation" - I'm
certainly not taking this one through the airport with me, I take a
smaller one. Like you, even with two computers and 4 monitors on my main
desk, I find that I'm using this laptop more than the others.
 
L

Leythos

Yet more FUD. I haven't noticed Vista to be slower than XP on any of the
machines I am responsible for. In fact, in certain cases, Vista is known
to be quicker than XP.

Please name those cases, specifically and on what hardware so that I can
check them against my own systems.
 
S

Spocks Buddy

Its the cases when people throw their vista computers out of the window...

then its going reeeaaaallll vast...

Lol this serious shave guy is FUD... Vista is always slower on all systems
with all types of hardware.

There is a lie circulating that vista is faster than xp on new hardware...
hey...
what do you say? I never thought of that....dahhhhh.....

OF COURSE any windows is faster on new hardware.. but if you format vista
and install XP
pro on that machine it will be going faster than it did with vista!

We can accept bloat and slow performance only if there is good reason.

Vista does not give many good reasons to put up with all that.. plus its
horrible compatibility problems.
 
M

MICHAEL

* Leythos:
We're seeing the same things - and thanks for the rational discussion
about it.

I like to call my laptop a "Luggable" or a "mobile workstation" - I'm
certainly not taking this one through the airport with me, I take a
smaller one. Like you, even with two computers and 4 monitors on my main
desk, I find that I'm using this laptop more than the others.

I was thinking about folks' perceptions and how they would judge Vista,
and actually most users' first contact with Vista will be because they bought
a new computer. Those computers *should* rock, simply because they are new
installs (uncluttered & untangled) and installed on new more powerful hardware.
So, when they compare it to what they had, they just may think it is the best thing
since jelly. Of course, the same could be said of a new XP machine. Even a new install
of XP on older hardware can work wonders. I remember when the Vista betas were
going on, and some users just swore that Vista was so much faster than XP. Many
of those users were trying to compare a clean install of Vista to an XP install that was
more than likely full of stuff and hadn't been wiped and cleaned in years.


-Michael
 
F

Frank

Spocks said:
youve got a lot to learn kid..

lets start with lesson one, repeat after me....


Vista is slower than XP, vista is slower than xp, vista is slower than
xp.......
Malaka!
Frank
 
Ad

Advertisements

F

Frank

Spocks said:
Its the cases when people throw their vista computers out of the window...

then its going reeeaaaallll vast...

Lol this serious shave guy is FUD... Vista is always slower on all systems
with all types of hardware.

There is a lie circulating that vista is faster than xp on new hardware...
hey...
what do you say? I never thought of that....dahhhhh.....

OF COURSE any windows is faster on new hardware.. but if you format vista
and install XP
pro on that machine it will be going faster than it did with vista!

We can accept bloat and slow performance only if there is good reason.

Vista does not give many good reasons to put up with all that.. plus its
horrible compatibility problems.

Malaka!
Frank
 
F

Frank

MICHAEL said:
* Frank:



Yiasou, Frank. That wasn't very nice.


-Michael

Yiasou Michael and no it wasn't intended to be nice. I just hope that
linux loser troll or mac addict spocks buddy gets the message.
Yiasou!
Frank
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Rock

Spocks Buddy said:
Let me find that "Vista is working fine on my computer therefore nothing
is wrong with it"
Medal.... its on a site somewhere...

you deserve it 100%

its you spreading FUD and you are a danger to society. So put a sock in
it.

I have extensive experience running Vista Ultimate on this system. You on
the other hand have provided nothing to support your broad claim. That is
exactly what FUD is about.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Top