What I've noticed so far...

[n00k]

It seems to me that most of the people complaining about Vista are
installing it and expecting a miracle to happen right off the bat. As
with ANY OS release there is a learning curve. A lot of the complaints
I've read are problems that are just part of learning where things have
been moved to, ie; menus, options, I had a few hiccups when I first
installed it, but I did my research, installed needed updates, and now
it's running like a champ. I have noticed a HUGE speed increase when
using Adobe apps, it basically smokes my XP install.

My favorite are the people that say it sucks or is stupid that only
quote an article they read somewhere or a blog and don't say what their
experience was, if indeed they have even installed it. I'll admit, the
new menu system takes some getting use to, but once I got the hang of
it, I would hate to have to go back to the old menu hierarchy layout. I
have seen very few problems in here that couldn't be resolved with a
little research. Don't expect the OS to try and train you, you have to
want learn it or you might as well just go back to XP and quit complaining.

And for those who say with all these issues, why did they release it!
Well, NO OS has ever been released without it's share of speed bumps,
Mac, and Linux included, thats what updates are for. Well, I'm done
ranting. Let the flames begin to rise!!! :0)



"Opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one, and everyones but mine
stinks!" hehehe

 

[Leythos]

It seems to me that most of the people complaining about Vista are
installing it and expecting a miracle to happen right off the bat.

I've designed boards and code since the 70's, worked with every version
of CPM, SCO Unix, DOS, Windows, and focus my own IT company on providing
MS based solutions for businesses with less than 200 employees.

I alway wait for 6 months or the first SP before putting an OS or major
application in production.

Having lived through the Win311 to 95 to 98 to 2000 to XP and NT351 to
NT4 to 2000 to 2003, etc...

I expected Vista to take a lot more RAM and a lot more CPU, but, I
really didn't expect it to take 580MB without loading anything extra.

I also didn't expect to have to hack video drivers for my 1 year old
laptop, the wireless drivers, or several other small things.

What I do find most annoying is the constant little pauses while doing
things.

This laptop has a Full (not mobile) P4/3.2ghz hyper threaded CPU, 2GB
RAM, a 5400 RPM 120GB Drive, and under XP or 2003 was fast and
responsive and could run VS 2005, SQL, Exchange, and many other tools.

Vista is "Pretty", but the cost in resources is more than double what XP
was.

I won't discuss the apps (like Office 2007), just the OS. I don't mind
having to relearn where everything is, I kind of expected it, but, the
dramatic increase in resource consumption is not worth the benefits of
Vista.

 

[n00k]

I've designed boards and code since the 70's, worked with every version
of CPM, SCO Unix, DOS, Windows, and focus my own IT company on providing
MS based solutions for businesses with less than 200 employees.

I alway wait for 6 months or the first SP before putting an OS or major
application in production.

Having lived through the Win311 to 95 to 98 to 2000 to XP and NT351 to
NT4 to 2000 to 2003, etc...

I expected Vista to take a lot more RAM and a lot more CPU, but, I
really didn't expect it to take 580MB without loading anything extra.

I also didn't expect to have to hack video drivers for my 1 year old
laptop, the wireless drivers, or several other small things.

What I do find most annoying is the constant little pauses while doing
things.

This laptop has a Full (not mobile) P4/3.2ghz hyper threaded CPU, 2GB
RAM, a 5400 RPM 120GB Drive, and under XP or 2003 was fast and
responsive and could run VS 2005, SQL, Exchange, and many other tools.

Vista is "Pretty", but the cost in resources is more than double what XP
was.

I won't discuss the apps (like Office 2007), just the OS. I don't mind
having to relearn where everything is, I kind of expected it, but, the
dramatic increase in resource consumption is not worth the benefits of
Vista.

I really haven't noticed any real slowdowns, not saying other people
don't have them, just that I haven't. Some of the speed increase I may
be noticing may be due to the fact that I was running WinXP 32bit and
now I'm running Vista 64bit. My system is an ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe, Athlon
64 X2 4800+, 3gigs of DDR RAM, and a Radeon X1300 512meg video card
running 2 19" Westinghouse monitors at max resolution.

 

[BigJim]

I also have been working with MS OS since dos 3.11, what I have found is
that I can do the same things with xp that I can with Vista. I will say that
it is pretty stable on my system. It has better security than xp for the
average user and setup was pretty easy.
I don't like the cost of the OS, just cheap I guess, and finding or getting
drivers for certain devices are nonexistence, maybe in the future or maybe
not. Have to wait and see it the manufactures can catch up. I did a clean
install and all the drivers for my board were included and worked. I think a
lot of people need to read about installing Vista as an upgrade because
their are certain things that need to be shut down before doing one. When I
am done testing Vista I will be going back to XP until a service pack comes
out then we'll see how it goes. I am running(testing) Vista Ultimate on a
Asus
P4P800se with 1 meg of dual channel ram, 6600gt nvidia 128meg agp card using
and onboard SoundMax audio and Marvell Lan. I also have a Nec firewire card
installed and Vista installed drivers for that. So I got Lucky, but I can't
use my Lexmark x75 printer/scanner, no drivers.

 

[fred_eg_bowinatuck]

It seems to me that most of the people complaining about Vista are
installing it and expecting a miracle to happen right off the bat.
As with ANY OS release there is a learning curve. A lot of the
complaints I've read are problems that are just part of learning
where things have been moved to, ie; menus, options

I have no complaint with learning new software,
consider part of the fun of having a computer,
just why are silly things renamed,
seemingly just for the sake of it?

My Documents > Documents

 

[Guest]

It seems to me that most of the people complaining about Vista are
installing it and expecting a miracle to happen right off the bat. As
with ANY OS release there is a learning curve. A lot of the complaints
I've read are problems that are just part of learning where things have
been moved to, ie; menus, options, I had a few hiccups when I first
installed it, but I did my research, installed needed updates, and now
it's running like a champ. I have noticed a HUGE speed increase when
using Adobe apps, it basically smokes my XP install.

My favorite are the people that say it sucks or is stupid that only
quote an article they read somewhere or a blog and don't say what their
experience was, if indeed they have even installed it. I'll admit, the
new menu system takes some getting use to, but once I got the hang of
it, I would hate to have to go back to the old menu hierarchy layout. I
have seen very few problems in here that couldn't be resolved with a
little research. Don't expect the OS to try and train you, you have to
want learn it or you might as well just go back to XP and quit complaining.

And for those who say with all these issues, why did they release it!
Well, NO OS has ever been released without it's share of speed bumps,
Mac, and Linux included, thats what updates are for. Well, I'm done
ranting. Let the flames begin to rise!!! :0)



"Opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one, and everyones but mine
stinks!" hehehe

I agree with you. I have noticed a speed increase as well. Might be due to
having dual core systems, XP does not use dual core very well. I have not had
any troubles with vista Even finding drivers has not been an issue for my
system. Mcafee was the only software glich, but was easy to fix with a
download.

I have been playing with computers since DOS 2 Well i little before but.!! I
have always found things change Some good some bad some just SO-SO. But if
you take the time to play and learn it all comes together in the end.

With so many hardware and software choices, There is bound to be conflicts
one should expect it. No one can make an O/S to fit evey possible system
setup. All and all Vista is not a bad OS just different.

Window 3.0 had to buy a now color monitor VGA paper white would not work!!!

 

[NoStop]

I have no complaint with learning new software,
consider part of the fun of having a computer,
just why are silly things renamed,
seemingly just for the sake of it?

My Documents > Documents

I guess MickeyMouse finally clued into how childish names like My Documents
and My Photos sounded. In an effort to make Vista look like a real
operating system, they dropped that silliness.

Cheers.

 

[n00k]

It seems to me that most of the people complaining about Vista are
installing it and expecting a miracle to happen right off the bat. As
with ANY OS release there is a learning curve. A lot of the complaints
I've read are problems that are just part of learning where things have
been moved to, ie; menus, options, I had a few hiccups when I first
installed it, but I did my research, installed needed updates, and now
it's running like a champ. I have noticed a HUGE speed increase when
using Adobe apps, it basically smokes my XP install.

My favorite are the people that say it sucks or is stupid that only
quote an article they read somewhere or a blog and don't say what their
experience was, if indeed they have even installed it. I'll admit, the
new menu system takes some getting use to, but once I got the hang of
it, I would hate to have to go back to the old menu hierarchy layout. I
have seen very few problems in here that couldn't be resolved with a
little research. Don't expect the OS to try and train you, you have to
want learn it or you might as well just go back to XP and quit complaining.

And for those who say with all these issues, why did they release it!
Well, NO OS has ever been released without it's share of speed bumps,
Mac, and Linux included, thats what updates are for. Well, I'm done
ranting. Let the flames begin to rise!!! :0)



"Opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one, and everyones but mine
stinks!" hehehe

Really glad to see a lot of you in agreeance with me :0) Anyone wanna
start a microsoft.public.windows.vista.general drinking game? Every
time you see the words stupid, sucks, crap, or junk, take a shot,
wait, I'm not sure I have enough alcohol to play in here, o well.

 

[BSchnur]

I really haven't noticed any real slowdowns, not saying other people

don't have them, just that I haven't. Some of the speed increase I may
be noticing may be due to the fact that I was running WinXP 32bit and
now I'm running Vista 64bit. My system is an ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe, Athlon
64 X2 4800+, 3gigs of DDR RAM, and a Radeon X1300 512meg video card
running 2 19" Westinghouse monitors at max resolution.

Well, that is hardware very well suited for Vista. 3G is sort of an
odd number -- 2x1G + 2x512M there? With Vista 64bit, you might look to
take advantage of the memory handling and bump to 4G (which I suspect
is the top end for the motherboard).

 

[Adam Albright]

Really glad to see a lot of you in agreeance with me :0) Anyone wanna
start a microsoft.public.windows.vista.general drinking game? Every
time you see the words stupid, sucks, crap, or junk, take a shot,
wait, I'm not sure I have enough alcohol to play in here, o well.

That would be fun, but we all would pass out in about a hour. Just
play it where every time Vista throw up the UAC warning you take a
drink.

 

[Lang Murphy]

Vista has a different memory manager than XP. Don't mean to come off harsh,
but expectations are, imho, a weak basis on which to evaluate system
performance. SuperFetch should leave one's PC with a very small amount of
free RAM. I have seen this box with 0MB free RAM, yet performance suffers
not a bit. YMMV.

Lang

 

[Lang Murphy]

And that's the "crux of the biscuit" (as Frank Zappa said...): drivers,
drivers, drivers. Windows (any version) isn't the only x86 OS faced with
that issue... and some folks just don't do their homework. I guess the
question then becomes "Is it MS's responsibility to warn, again and again,
all users of possible incompatibilities? Perhaps, I don't know... Maybe
there should be a splash screen in the Vista install that says something
like "If you don't know what a hardware driver is, postpone installation
until you've gone off and done some self-paced training on same." Yes,
harsh, I know... but I find it hard to fault MS when there are a gazillion
different possible hardware configurations out there in the world. HW and SW
vendors knew Vista was coming... can't fault MS because nVidia drivers suck.
Can't fault MS because Software Company A didn't update their stuff to run
on Vista. My two cents...

Lang

 

[Rich]

I guess MickeyMouse finally clued into how childish names like My

Documents
and My Photos sounded. In an effort to make Vista look like a real
operating system, they dropped that silliness.

Dropping silliness ...
what a concept

Try it sometime

heh

Rich

don't ya just love it?

 

[Leythos]

Vista has a different memory manager than XP. Don't mean to come off harsh,
but expectations are, imho, a weak basis on which to evaluate system
performance.

Wrong, based on the Windows history, and how it's been every time with
every version, I expected Vista to be slower and it is, but, I didn't
expect the OS to consume more than 580MB just sitting there doing
nothing.

SuperFetch should leave one's PC with a very small amount of
free RAM. I have seen this box with 0MB free RAM, yet performance suffers
not a bit. YMMV.

Strnagely enough, a box with 512MB suffers to the point that it's not
usable for anything other than the screen saver.

I've seen boxes that are over the amount of Physical RAM, in XP and
2003, that perform, but not perform well, and it's also based on how
much RAM they have to start with. A machine with 3GB of RAM using 3.2GB
will perform better than a machine with 256MB of ram using 280MB.

 

[Lang Murphy]

Well, apparently we agree to disagree. You can expect all you want, but
expectations, as previously stated, are a weak basis for evaluating system
performance.

I ran the beta code on a laptop with 512MB RAM and a 64MB video card. Aero
worked and the box performed sufficiently when browsing and maybe having one
app open. No multimedia, of course. Haven't tried RTM code on that box. And
I surely wouldn't run Vista on a box with less than a gig of RAM, with 2GB's
the preferred config. Talking about x86.

As I type this, on a Dell GX620 with 2GB RAM, I have 10MB free physical RAM,
yet this box is performing just fine, thank you SuperFetch.

Lang