Why Vista is great - and people need to stop looking for things...

[Justin]

Actually he did put words in your mouth because I was the one who
suggested Vista should run smoother with more video RAM.

I didn't put any words in anyone's mouth. We where discussing video RAM,
his reply was about system RAM so I ASKED A QUESTION based on his reply in
regards to video RAM. But he can't help the drama queen that resides deep
down inside his soul.

More video RAM does help in Vista if you do a lot on screen.

While this is true, I still don't see how Vista needs 1GB.

That seems to be the biggest problem so far. Vista works great for some
people, not so great for others. It depends on what hardware you have and
what programs you're trying to run. Apparently there is a configuration
that Vista will run on, and an optimal configuration. I believe that
Upgrade Advisor tells you it will run, not so much how efficiently it
might run. Again it seems to be from the drivers. As they release
updates, it should run more efficiently with other hardware and software
combinations.

Exactly. But he's already been told that and he keeps blubbering about how
all his apps have to work "at once" in order for Vista to be a "good" OS.
Because he doesn't have 100% driver support, Vista is less of an OS then XP.

When someone comes to this NG with a problem and they are told they clearly
have a driver problem and will have to wait, he rants on about Vista being a
poor OS and how dare MS release such a piece of crap....or something like
that. I probably combined him with another troll.

 

[Leythos]

Ok, I guess I have to resort to repeating myself.

1. The Vista Upgrade Advisor is just a BASELINE TOOL.
2. You need to WAIT for better driver support for your hardware. This does
NOT mean Vista is at fault.
3. You obviously have a graphics issue. That score sucks. If you have a
decent video card then you are most likely experiencing a major driver
issue. Which will more then likely cause OTHER issues.
4. Your HDD score is 4.4 with a 5400RPM drive? Wow! That's a huge error.
I don't believe that one for a second.
5. Make sure to remember #2!!!!!!!

I'm not sure if your just trolling or your just rude.

I stated the scores that appear on the report, nothing different, the
exact scores. Maybe I just know how to pick hardware where I have a choice
and you don't?

I had no choice in Nivdia 5200 series video card, the CPU and Drive I did
have a choice in, and I got good hardware.

Maybe you should remember that many people will NOT be buying completely
new computers, and that's doubly true for ones that are not even a year
old, just to run vista.

I was not complaining, just pointing out that on a less than 1 year old
laptop, and a high performance laptop (notice I didn't say game machine)
that can run Windows 2003 Server (Std and Ent), Exchange, SQL (2000/2005),
and even SBS 2003 Prem, it shows very bad performance on Vista.

 

[Leythos]

Actually its a MARKETING tool that tells nearly everybody your system
will support Vista and oh, by the way, while I (Vista Upgrade Advisor)
don't understand the list of drivers I'm showing you I see on your XP
system that works fine they "shouldn't" present any problems, wink,
wink once you upgrade to Vista. No, not until you ACTUALLY BUY Vista
then try to install Vista then those "not a issue" drivers the Vista
Upgrade Advisor glossed over and said wouldn't be a big deal, often
BECOME a big enough deal to crash the Vista installer and dump you to
a BSOD screen frequently at the 21% point.

I'm guessing you didn't have to deal with this issue. Ignorance is
bliss isn't it.

That's exactly the point - I made sure that every machine I tested it on
passed the advisor. I even did a fresh (not upgrade) install so that it
would not have anything from XP left over to be a complication.

I expected to have issues, and I expected it, as with every new os, to be
slower in most things, but, I didn't expect the level of performance hit
that I seen on the test machines.

 

[Leythos]

It tells them Vista can run on their system. How many posts have you seen
where someone could not boot to desktop? Not many! Now whether or not
Vista will continue to be stable on their system will depend on hardware
SUPPORT. I don't know what world you live in but MS is not responsible for
hardware.

My hardware passed, completely the advisor, and while it did boot to the
desktop, it would only run as VGA not as a native proper driver. It also
didn't work with my Aerthos wireless card and neither of these issues was
noted in the advisor.

I don't know what in the world kind of medication you are taking, but it
sure seem like you think that all the problems are either the idiot users
or the idiot that doesn't have good drivers.

What you need to understand is that the advisor does look at a prospective
users hardware, and software, and tells them if their hardware is
supported - when it doesn't indicate any problems a typical user could
expect to install vista (virgin installation) without any problems.

So, either understand or stop trolling.

 

[Justin]

I'm not sure if your just trolling or your just rude.

I stated the scores that appear on the report, nothing different, the
exact scores. Maybe I just know how to pick hardware where I have a choice
and you don't?

You based that theory on your HDD score? Funny. How was it rude? I
implied it was either an error or you lied. So if you didn't lie then the
OTHER applies. Not knowing you I at least gave you the benefit of the
doubt. You now doubt Vista can have a bug? That's a first!!!

Or maybe Vista gives laptops more room. In that case a 7200 SATA drive
should max out. We'll need that data to compare.

Maybe you should remember that many people will NOT be buying completely
new computers, and that's doubly true for ones that are not even a year
old, just to run vista.

What gave you the impression that I did not know this? For those not
wanting to buy new hardware they need to RESEARCH if their machine will run
Vista with the upgrade advisor THEN THEY NEED TO RESEARCH if Vista will run
WELL.

If not then they need to wait and not install it anyway, then bitch about
how screwed up Vista is.

I was not complaining, just pointing out that on a less than 1 year old
laptop, and a high performance laptop (notice I didn't say game machine)
that can run Windows 2003 Server (Std and Ent), Exchange, SQL (2000/2005),
and even SBS 2003 Prem, it shows very bad performance on Vista.

You need to correct your conclusion to be more accurate:

"...it shows very bad performance running Vista with improper hardware
support from the hardware vendor."

 

[Justin]

So, either understand or stop trolling.

That's funny. This coming from someone that can't understand the upgrade
advisor was NOT a complete research tool.

I agree on one point. The VUA was a major mistake on MS's part. It gave
people an excuse to be lazy and to blame all driver issues on MS.

 

[Justin]

That's exactly the point - I made sure that every machine I tested it on
passed the advisor. I even did a fresh (not upgrade) install so that it
would not have anything from XP left over to be a complication.

Please point us to the MS reference that says the VUA is the ultimate and
ONLY tool needed to determine if Vista is "OK" for your hardware.

 

[Justin]

*p

*plonk*

 

[Saucy]

That is actually quite true. Alias, for example, who posts here regularly
bashing Microsoft, hasn't even installed Vista AFAIK. At least up to a week
or so ago anyway. He claims he's done a lot of research - but, of course,
there's no papers to back up his claim.

Many of the trolls who come in her putting down Vista have yet see it, or
saw it once on a demo computer at a computer store. Many are Apple computer
users or Linux fan-boys.

 

[Justin]

You are correct. It was a few weeks ago (before I blocked him) that he
admitted to having never installed Vista.

 

[Adam Albright]

That is actually quite true. Alias, for example, who posts here regularly
bashing Microsoft, hasn't even installed Vista AFAIK. At least up to a week
or so ago anyway. He claims he's done a lot of research - but, of course,
there's no papers to back up his claim.

Many of the trolls who come in her putting down Vista have yet see it, or
saw it once on a demo computer at a computer store. Many are Apple computer
users or Linux fan-boys.

That may be somewhat true however it is also true that a lot of
Microsoft apologists are at best green as grass amateurs that
problably had trouble openning Vista's new design packaging. <wink>

By the way, pointing out all the dumb things Microsoft does and gets
away with isn't bashing. Amazing how some get upset over hearing the
truth.

 

[BSchnur]

If the "work" on Vista was complete then your little rant would be worth

something. No one said Vista was "done".

Except for the revenues a 'not done' product generates. I suppose that
if folks were charged say 50% on release, and then milestone payments
as the product moved to 'done' status, folks really wouldn't have much
to complain about.

Then again, for most of my clients, I agree with you, Vista isn't
'done' and they don't need to move to a not yet 'done' product yet.
When Vista is quite a bit closer to 'done' -- perhaps SP1 might be
there, and driver support is much more seasoned, then it will make more
sense to jump to it.

Don't get me wrong, I like Vista -- and can see that it will be an
excellent product. If someone wants it today on new hardware and they
are making an informed choice, they should be in good shape.

 

[BSchnur]

Wow, you're wittiness is just too much to handle.

Who knows, maybe it isn't his 'wittiness' you are supposed to
handle....

 

[Alias]

That is actually quite true. Alias, for example, who posts here
regularly bashing Microsoft, hasn't even installed Vista AFAIK. At least
up to a week or so ago anyway. He claims he's done a lot of research -
but, of course, there's no papers to back up his claim.

Many of the trolls who come in her putting down Vista have yet see it,
or saw it once on a demo computer at a computer store. Many are Apple
computer users or Linux fan-boys.

Please don't try to misrepresent me. I love XP and have loved using it
since 03 and feel that MS has finally gotten it right with an OS. I
loved 95, 98, W2K and Me (in its only little way) and even put up with
the constant need to reboot and the BSODs. What I object to is putting
paying customers in the cross fire in their ongoing battle with hackers,
crackers and pirates. I would feel better about MS if they offered a
real family pack, not a one Ultimate and two Premiums (with the
assumption you will upgrade and pay for two Ultimates down the line).

In regards to Vista, I fully plan to buy a copy of Ultimate when it's
ready for prime time and I'm ready to put out the bucks for the hardware
so I can play the latest games with my kid. When that happens, this old
ASUS AMD 800 will be a Ubuntu only machine. My business machines,
however, will keep XP for sometime as they are fast enough for my
tastes, will last a few more years and they do they job. Whether they
will eventually house Vista or some Linux variation remains to be seen.

Alias

 

[Alias]

You are correct. It was a few weeks ago (before I blocked him) that he
admitted to having never installed Vista.

And I replied that you don't have to jump off the Empire State Bldg. to
know it isn't a good idea. Then, due to the fact that you ran out of any
reasonable argument, you ran away and hid behind the skirts of a plonk.

Alias

 

[Leythos]

That's funny. This coming from someone that can't understand the upgrade
advisor was NOT a complete research tool.

I agree on one point. The VUA was a major mistake on MS's part. It gave
people an excuse to be lazy and to blame all driver issues on MS.

You keep showing that you miss the point of the comments I've made.

MS made Vista, they also made the VUA, so, what makes you think, if they
made a mistake with something as simple as the VUA that they didn't make a
mistake with hardware interfaces (and I'm not talking about drivers) for
common hardware.

 

[Justin]

Except Vista will never be "done".

OSX will never be "done".

Linux will never be "done".

They drop the current project in favor of a much better "alternative"
(humorous way of putting it!....EOL)

Vista is "done" enough to start selling. Unfortunately like all other new
OSs, the drivers need to catch up.

I know a lot of people have grips about some functionality and I for one
don't agree with some of what went in to Vista but...tuff shit! We just
have to deal with it. I'd go as far as to guess at least 90% of the
problems people have with Vista are driver related.

 

[Justin]

I'm not going there!

Who knows, maybe it isn't his 'wittiness' you are supposed to
handle....

 

[arachnid]

Except Vista will never be "done".

OSX will never be "done".

Linux will never be "done".

They drop the current project in favor of a much better "alternative"
(humorous way of putting it!....EOL)

One slight difference: Linux builds on its existing foundation instead of
periodically throwing everything out and trying to reinvent the same wheel
all over again.

Vista is "done" enough to start selling. Unfortunately like all other new
OSs, the drivers need to catch up.

The drivers aren't going to, because the manufacturers would rather sell
you an expensive new printer, video card, monitor, computer...

That's a problem for Linux, too. Linux developers have offered to write
Linux drivers for free, with special arrangements being made to honor
NDA's. The manufacturers still aren't biting. IMO that's because they'd
lose control over the drivers, and thus lose the ability to force
consumers to prematurely replace their hardware with every new OS update.

 

[BSchnur]

I'm not going there!