DrewWinters

Way to dig up an old post! In the future, consider starting a new thread instead. But, no worries... to answer your question: basically, it means low-end systems are not capable of running Aero Glass. Without Aero Glass a few other features like Dreamscene won't function, as well. I thought it only required a 3 in desktop graphics to enable Aero Glass, but I don't really remember.

I have the same problem (x64 version though); I'm also fairly certain it's because of Windows Mail.

Congratulations.

Performance went up for me as well. Someone (PC World, I think?) was reporting that USB 2.0 External drives took a 50% performance hit, but I got a noticeable boost with mine. File transfers are noticeably faster in every situation I've come across. Of course, YMMV

That sounds pretty solid! Paul Thurrott posted screenies yesterday; this one included... So, ColdFlo, I think we can be pretty confident that 1840 is the right build. Thanks!

But why would they ever bother to make hologram'd CD's of SP1? It will be a free download - why bother with holograms? It will be available online, why CD's at all? A regular burner or inkjet label-maker can't make holograms - why would they keep that sort of equipment on the main campus? How could it have come back from whatever factory makes the CD's so quickly after the code was finalized? These are honest questions - I'll admit there may well be a good answer for all of them - I'm just skeptical... for the moment. If I were trying to call a bluff, I would call it - not ask questions. I really hate that things like that get totally lost in text... and here I am, hoping to learn how to write. Go figure... But that's not why I was saying "what?" That was in response to ColdFlo saying "SP1 is god. Tried 2 vlites so for no dice........" What are you trying to say, friend?

Forgive me for being skeptical, but how exactly do you have an official CD of the final build of SP1 when it was only finalized a few days ago? Why would a hologram'd CD of SP1 even exist?

I read the same thing concerning 1840, but the official word from Microsoft, according to T h e H o t f i x . n e t, is "we’re not commenting on the build number." EDIT: Link Deleted. what the heck? no matter what I type in for a link, it gets changed to s.p.a.m.net! Even plain-text addresses! What's going on?

Incidentally, SP1 is not yet final. It probably will not be final for several more weeks. I'm aware that there are a few torrents floating around claiming to be the final copy, but they simply aren't. It may or may not be a new build, but it isn't final yet.

This is known issue. Do a search and you'll find quite a bit of discussion about the matter. You need an image with SP1 already installed *before* you use vLite.

x64 Vista does seem to use more RAM than the x86 version, but I wouldn't worry too much over how much it's using - it seems to be pretty good at getting rid of things if you start to run out of RAM. Superfetch keeps all sorts of things loaded into RAM so that your programs will load faster - but if you need the space, it'll kick them out. That said, some programs are real RAM hogs... the Sidebar is said to be a real hog (it's useless for you so I cut it out with Vlite anyway) for instance. If you have Ultimate and use DreamScene, I've seen Dreamscene (+DeskScape) use over a 100mb of RAM! That's a lot for wallpaper! (It's so nifty though, it's worth it!) If it bothers you, check out Vlite and get rid of some of the programs that are eating up your RAM. Retail versions of Vista Ultimate come with both x64 and x86 versions; I presume the same key works for both. Other retail versions only come with the x86 version, but you can order the x64 for a minimal fee - I presume those keys are identical as well. However, OEM copies of Vista come with only x86 *OR* x64 versions, and therefore it only makes sense that those keys do NOT work for other copies. Then again, I haven't tested any of this, so I can't promise anything. Maybe I shouldn't have bothered saying anything... <shrug> take it for its worth.

I could only get it down to around 400mb, but I'm sure I've seen it less than that before. <shrug> Oh well... I am using the "disable paging executive" and "large system cache" tweaks; plus I disabled the page file, so maybe that has something to do with it... Seriously though, don't worry too much about squeezing every ounce of free memory out of the system. Just load up on cheap DDR2 and forget about running out of memory!

Out of curiosity, I disabled the pagefile on my desktop (4Gb RAM) several days ago. Nothing has crashed or complained, but I really haven't noticed much difference in performance - but then, with an overclocked quad-core and 4gb of RAM, things are pretty quick to begin with. <shrug> YMMV

Is the digital audio work ALL you are going to be doing? Do you need networking capabilities? Or to what extent do you need networking capabilities? Do you have many accessories that need to operate? (scanners, cameras, keyboards/mice with extra functions, etc.?) Do you want to keep the eye-candy turned on? (Aero? Themes? Basic?) Do you need fast search capability? (i.e. do you want the indexer on?) It's hard to judge memory use with Superfetch enabled, since it consumes a dynamic amount of RAM depending on how much is available. I'll do some playing around with disabling things when I go home for lunch, or tonight if I don't have time over lunch... I'm curious now myself. I'd bet the minimum amount Vista will take is around 200-250... Nonetheless, RAM is so cheap right now you can easily load up a workstation with 8Gb. Could you really use up so much RAM doing audio work that you need to worry about freeing up every last bit of RAM?

I would rather have 64-bit Business on mine than I would 32-bit Home Premium, but you'll want to make sure there are 64-bit drivers available for everything on your system prior to installing it. I'm used to playing around with the system and I can generally fix things on my own, so the occasion trifle with program incompatibility isn't much of an issue to me. That said, I haven't had almost any trouble with 64-bit Ultimate. I say "almost" only because I can't seem to get drivers for my printer. YMMV

For me, it would sit at "Copying Windows Files" for only a second or two before checking that off and moving to "expanding files," where it would sit at 0% for 10 minutes or so and then start progressing normally. In other words, it seems to be sitting at 0% on "Expanding Files" while it is actually still copying the files over. At least, that's my guess. No idea why it would do that though...

Is there any way to get a LaserJet to work with Vista x64? HP has said they have drivers coming for a year and a half... I've looked for generic 64-bit printer drivers without luck and the drivers built-in to Vista didn't work (did they work for anyone else with a LaserJet?) I can use my laptop (can't put x64 on it anyway - it's just a P-M) to print if I have to, but it's a pain.

I can't offer much help, I've had more trouble with the Start menu than *anything* else in Vista. That said, here's my one little tip: don't "keep trying." If you move something, and then it doesn't appear to move - don't keep trying to move it. Just let it be for awhile. I'm not sure why it doesn't immediately work like it should, but sometimes the Start menu just doesn't refresh like it should. Continuing to move something already moved just makes things worse. I hope you get more help than that though, because I sure could use some of it myself. Trying to work on the Start menu is like trying to get my roommates to clean up after themselves....

Remember, your overall score is simply the lowest of all the other scores. My guess is, your HDD, CPU and Memory scores are all fairly similar (probably all above 5.) No doubt his graphics and gaming graphics scores are 5.9, while I would guess your graphics score is a 4-point-something and your gaming graphics score is a 3.5. The short answer to your question is: Yes, the few deviations in hardware perfectly justify the difference in score. Your graphics card is a Honda vs. his Corvette. I hope this doesn't hurt your pride or lose you a bet!

I have had several programs outright crash without a pagefile, and one that wouldn't start at all (an old driving game: Need for Speed Porsche Unleashed) If I'm not mistaken, however, they were all games - nothing as sophisticated as Photoshop (which can create its own 'pagefile') has given me trouble. I've never tried Vista without a pagefile, however, so this was on XP. The only memory trouble I've had in Vista was with Supreme Commander. The game would run out of RAM *and* the pagefile and crash, but that would probably occur anyway, since it's a bug. Also, Windows itself warns that it "may not records details" if a system crash occurs if a pagefile is not present. I've not run without a pagefile when my system was unstable, so I haven't tested this. One more note: if you use a program to test your memory (like 64-bit Prime95) it may intentionally use up all your available RAM - without a pagefile this may cause a system crash. All this to say: GetCool is mostly right - but there really are a few programs/situations that will not work without a pagefile - but they are rare. I ran without a pagefile when XP was new and I had 512mb of RAM: it took me a year before I had trouble with anything. If your system is not mission-critical (sounds like a gaming machine to me) then you'll be fine without a pagefile; it won't destroy anything. If you have trouble, just add "turn page file back on" to your list of troubleshooting steps. Windows seems pretty smart about not paging important things anyway, so it won't make much difference in performance one way or the other. Best of luck!

Set your pagefile to 512Mb min, 512Mb Max. Some programs expect a pagefile, so you need something there, but you have enough RAM that you shouldn't need to dip into it. 512Mb works for me, and I've only got 4Gb (for the moment... 4 more on the way.) If you do somehow manage to run out of RAM and swap space, increase it a little - but I really doubt that will happen. Go ahead and set the DisablePagingExecutive and LargeSystemCache registry tweaks as well, if you have not already. EDIT: Oh yeah, put the pagefile on whichever drive Vista is NOT on, unless the system drive is more than twice as fast (or would that be four times as fast? Just put it on the other drive - it will be little used anyway.)

re: memory use, that depends on how much RAM you have to begin with. The more RAM you have, the more will be taken up. Presumably this is because Superfetch loads more into RAM if you have more RAM for it to use. I have 4Gb of RAM and it was using about 1.2Gb immediately after install. That sounds ridiculously high, but Superfetch will dump things out of memory if a program needs it. EDIT: For what it's worth, I *think* Vista itself is only using ~200mb, but I could be off.

Often, mine does that. I'm not sure why it stays at 0%, but it is working. Let it sit there for awhile - it can take quite a while, depending on the size of the installation and the speed of the HDD and DVD you are installing to/from. Go watch a movie, if it's still at 0% and not doing anything, then maybe you really have a problem. EDIT: just for clarification, it seems it is only the percentage counter that is broken for me, nothing else.

I'm not sure why this thread even exists - ATM, you created a thread just to say "I don't like Vista"? Thanks for sharing. You're a model of contribution. <rolls eyes> (maybe that was too harsh) That said, I just got back from visiting my parents for Christmas. Last year I built them a computer and put Vista Home Premium (32-bit) on it. I have a computer with Ultimate (32-bit) with similar specs. Core2Duo, 2gb DDR2-800, discrete GPU, 7200rpm SATA HDD... My GPU is a lot faster (8800GTS vs. 7600GT) and my CPU is a little faster (2.975 vs. 2.4) but their HDD is a little newer (Seagate 7200.10 750gb vs. 7200.9 200gb). Yet their computer runs terribly! The HDD never stops thrashing and the system is very unresponsive relatively frequently. They run several programs all the time: Windows Mail, Kaspersky Anti-virus, and a weather station monitoring program. Their copy of Vista is not Vlited. Mine is vlited relatively extensively and the only program I run all the time is Gmail notifier. Despite my HDD being slower, my system runs like a champ with no HDD thrashing. The system is almost never unresponsive and boots rights up to a usable desktop in less than 30 seconds. My folks computer takes about a minute to reach the desktop, but remains unusable for another minute. I didn't write this to ask for advice on making my parent's computer run faster. I wrote this to point out the major difference between our experience with Vista: Vlite. It's fitting, of course, to write this here. Before you give up on Vista because it's too slow: do yourself a favor and vlite it. It makes all the difference in the world. MS really needs to consider adding a way to customize the installation of Windows like they do with Office and like nearly every other software company on the planet does... The Vista kernel actually seems to be significantly faster than the XP kernel, but there is too much stuff riding on top of it. Clear out that stuff and it runs beautifully; with the exception of file transfers. God only knows why they can't get that right... Maybe you skipped all of that just to read the last line? Here's all you need to know: try Vlite before you give up on Vista. EDIT: I just realized I managed, somehow, to leave the Vlite forum and end up in the Vista forum. Not sure how that happened, but at least your post makes a *little* more sense now, ATM.

I just read on [H]ardOCP that you have to run this game in Windows 98 compatibility mode to get it to work... I'm not at home to try it, but I'll bet that's the problem. So, it isn't Vlite's fault, it's EA Sport's fault. EDIT: Verified, it was just the game, not Vlite. I'm not sure what was wrong with Half-Life2, but I'm pretty certain it was something similar. No worries!