Jump to content

So... everyone's opinion on vista?


D3H6G9

Recommended Posts

Vista is very impressive but slow, take 40 min. in installation and take 7 GB+ on harddisk.

Too secure, ask 2/3 time when user wants to install or run any new setup. These warnining should be configurable. But I can't find the way.

Now I am back on XP. :thumbup

Pawan

nfh3ew.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites


i like windows XP pro the best. its fast, efficient, and stable. i know its not small by any means, but with nlite, its great.

windows vista ran on my computer, but thats about it. my network card didnt work, and my sound didnt work. so i didnt play around with it much. i just went back to XP.

currently, my brother is using windows server 2003 and its a good OS for him. he plays a lot of games and with the newer kernel, it runs good for him. he says hes noticed a speed difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not much in the way of improvements. Heard they've remade the network and sound stacks, but your money's better spent on a faster connection and an X-fi sound card than buying an entire new OS.

Any idea if the network stacks actually are better than what's found in 2k or XP?

Wondering if it's possible to take Vista .dll for network stacks and then replace them into Win2k or XP to improve performance. Hmm, maybe I'll give this a try.

BTW, I heard somewhere that NT network stack is just a slightly modified version of the BSD network stack, is this true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dx10 will be relesed on XP because it will also be still a popluar OS and microsoft wont risk product sales like that... they will release Vista hoping 6/10 ppl upgrade andthen a few months on release dx10 on XP...

is that an opnion, or is that confirmed?

About vista, wow, seems the consensus is 1) bLOATEd and 2) crap :) I run an nLite'd XP Pro, but have toyed with several flavors of Linux over the years. What i really liked about a lot of their installers was the ability to choose what packages to install, unlike macro$shaft which assumes everyone needs an friggin' animated doggy and MSN messenger, etc., etc., etc.

Edited by atomizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dx10 will be relesed on XP because it will also be still a popluar OS and microsoft wont risk product sales like that... they will release Vista hoping 6/10 ppl upgrade andthen a few months on release dx10 on XP...

is that an opnion, or is that confirmed?

its an opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when you refer to crap, can you give some example? i know everyone says there is to much crap but i still don't see examples of it, POW has some good examples (by the way the green bar across the top is the indexing agent checking the folder and reindexing it :)) that is why it takes for ever one those folders with huge AVis or movie files.

Not really in the area of 'crap', but there are a few things that don't quite work yet. Nortel VPN client, Nvidia SLI, and winpcap are a few... I expect that the size will be a bit smaller in final distro, but also suspect that some of the current controls may be pared down.

I'm a bit concerned about some of the DRM rumours that have surfaced. I haven't really tried (yet) to burn a CD or DVD, so don't really know if the rumours are justified. Maybe I should just to give it a lash.

Basically, if the Nortel issue could be resolved I could use this as my primary OS now. Also, all proviso's aside, I basically like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any idea if the network stacks actually are better than what's found in 2k or XP?

Wondering if it's possible to take Vista .dll for network stacks and then replace them into Win2k or XP to improve performance. Hmm, maybe I'll give this a try.

BTW, I heard somewhere that NT network stack is just a slightly modified version of the BSD network stack, is this true?

i can't imagine what could be better about it. xp has a bulletproof stack.

i remember way back in the day an issue with fragmented igmp packets, but i think that was pre-xp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if Vista is going to be successful. And I won't be upgrading to Vista too soon, XP is fine for me. What the hell is Microsoft thinking releasing an OS that requires a powerful high end machine anyway?

i personally think it's very Mac inspired. microsoft techs took a look at OSX and all they saw was the purty grafix.... they neglected to notice it's supreme functionality.

microsoft should have followed Apple's lead and used a BSD core...something more revolutionary instead of just fancy UI.

and to all the people saying they're going to be upgrading to vista for it's support of newer technology....WHAT newer technology!? (besides dx10, that doesn't count)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any idea if the network stacks actually are better than what's found in 2k or XP?

Wondering if it's possible to take Vista .dll for network stacks and then replace them into Win2k or XP to improve performance. Hmm, maybe I'll give this a try.

BTW, I heard somewhere that NT network stack is just a slightly modified version of the BSD network stack, is this true?

i can't imagine what could be better about it. xp has a bulletproof stack.

i remember way back in the day an issue with fragmented igmp packets, but i think that was pre-xp.

Both the sound and network stacks have been redone in Vista, hence whya number of network cards and sound cards do not have support yet. the new stacks are indeed faster (at least the network stack) and the sound stack will be very nice if sound companies finally get some drivers out for it, XPs network stack was good but lets not forget that it is around 10 years old, it was never designed to work with the amounts of data that some people push through it now, gig and 10-gig networks?? no one in their right mind would have though those would be around in 10 years, the XP stack works with this but not very inefficantly, the XP stack also doesn't have native support for IPv6, which will be a very real problem in the coming years.

@saugatak, back porting this stack to XP probably won't work as again, this is a 10 year jump in technology. the way that XP work with the stack and the way that Vista works with it are very different and no, i doubt the stack is a slightly modified BSD stack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

more valid list of core upgrades in Vista

Windows Vista is intended to be a technology-based release, to provide a solid base to include advanced technologies, many of which will be related to how the system functions, and hence not readily visible to the user.

Completely rearchitected audio, print, display and networking stacks.

Native IPv6 stack, which also works with IPv4, eliminating the need for dual stack network architecture. Improved resistance against all known TCP/IP-based denial of service and other types of network attacks. Enable more modular components that can be dynamically inserted and removed. Reconfigure without having to restart the computer. Automatically senses the network environment and adjusts key performance settings, such as the TCP receive window

A number of new security measures including BitLocker Drive Encryption

Improved memory manager and process scheduler. I/O has been enhanced with I/O asynchronous cancellation and I/O scheduling based on thread priority. Rewritten many kernel data structures and algorithms.

System services are in a separated and isolated session. User processes are in another session.

Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) to prevent Return-to-libc buffer overflow attacks.

The new Kernel Transaction Manager enables atomic transaction operations across different types of objects, most significantly file system (Transactional NTFS) and registry operations.

Deadlock Detection Technology is a new technology that will include checking for a deadlock condition for windows error reports

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it so far, and I don't just mean the fancy Stardock type stuff either. I don't dislike that though. I haven't bothered much with my Object Desktop in a while but I kind of enjoyed different looks once in a while.

I installed the 5456.5 version. Just a Customer Preview guy, but saw posts about improvements and did what I needed to do to get the update.

Luckily, it included the driver for my Marvell chip. I had downloaded the driver from Marvell's site just in case but didn't need to use it.

Geez! My download speeds are triple what I ever got with the same ethernet chip on XP or 98SE. They changed something for the better there. And since ZoneAlarm hasn't been updated for Vista yet I'm using the Windows Firewall. I don't know whether it's because of not having ZoneAlarm or just the better networking, but my web browers are opening pages much zippier. I've been browsing several days now, so it's not a fluke. For me, networking is better.

I noticed that Vista Ultimate includes an old GoBack feature of tracking file changes and offering them in a right click menu. This was always a nice idea that implements poorly. It causes the same kind of Chugga, Chugga hard drive thrashing that I remember from my GoBack days. It caused an early death of one of my hard drives and I mostly stopped installing GoBack after that. I think this feature will only be in Vista Ultimate editions, luckily for me, probably a Home Premium customer.

On my multi-boot of 98SE, XP, and Vista, I suffered from Vista's System Restore not being able to successfully restore to any points I saved. I've read that this occurs on any system with XP's System Restore active on the same hard drive. XP will, at boot up, delete any restore points on the hard drive that it considers "invalid." Since Vista's points are stamped differently, all are "invalid" so XP deletes them. Every bootup!

On mine, it's likely something else as I have the inactive primary partitions hidden by PQBOOT. But, I disabled System Restore in Vista as it's useless if it won't restore anything.

My Apollo printer needed me to manually select a similar model's driver as the XP one's for my model don't work. But the other model's driver runs it fine.

Forget about the scanner. HPScanjet 3970. I disable it. The driver installs fine from HP's disk then blue screens Vista on every bootup. Goodbye to the scanner in Vista unless HP does some work on it.

Luckily for me, I managed to get my Audigy 2 ZS to work awesomely. Sounds great! Soundfont's don't work though. Only Microsoft Roland Midi. Gotta disable the gameport device too. But EAX and all the other stuff works. Used the cd, updated the software, ran the latest XP driver update twice, letting AudioConsole install over itself the second time, and it all works. (UAP disabled until all my drivers were installed, then I reenabled it, but left driver signing turned off.) I think my mp3's actually sound better than XP. Maybe just my imagination though.

Windows Media Player 11 has an unknown DRM issue with any Hollywood movie copy protected DVD. But it plays PORN fine! Yay! Heh. PowerDVD 6 Deluxe turns off Aero but plays all DVD's fine.

WMP 11's Visualizations only play with cd's. Mp3's from the hard drive don't activate the visualizations for some reason. If I toggle PlayControl's Audio Quality to a different setting they'll play for one song then turn off again. That's weird. I just leave it at 16bit/48,000 as I think that's native to the Audigy 2 ZS. Hope they fix that. I like the vis's.

Internet Explorer 7 wouldn't expand any of my Favorites folders. So I installed Firefox and Thunderbird and they work fine. Plugin's like Flash, Shockwave, Acrobat Reader 7.08, SunJava 6 Beta, Quicktime and RealPlayer work fine within the browsers. However Quicktime 7 has a problem showing the video of files in its player. Works fine within the browser.

I use Avast for Anti-Virus, the ATI beta Catalyst's for the videocard, and leave Windows Defender and Firewall all activated. Bootup takes a wait, but since disabling System Restore things move along pretty well, though slower than XP.

Hey! My Thrustmaster XP driver runs the 2-in-1 Rumble gamepad perfectly! Surprise there. I play mostly older games so I think I'm in for some disapointment's but Activision's Space Invaders runs more smoothly than it did on XP. That's all I've tried for now. I installed it just to see if the gamepad would actually work in a game rather than just in the Control Panel. My Carmen Sandiego stuff wouldn't install. Shucks. Must use a partial 16 bit process for the installer as the NTVDM errored out during the install. I wanted to test the Quicktime stuff within that game.

Pretty good so far!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bloatware for sure. It all looks flashy whic is cool and all but not only spending the what $300 to $500 just for vist but then another 5 to 6 hundred to update memory processor ect. so it will run half way decent. We'll see I have been planning on upgrading my computer to a Athlon 64 X2 (4400) processor anyway so who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to be fair.. if you know what you are doing you can run Vista on a low end machine and still use all its cool features..being Aero Glass..and FLIP 3D...example look at my sig... apart from the graphics card..its a fairly average machine nothing special...now when i 1st installed Vista..booting up took atleast 3mins..and shutting down.. i gave up on lol....but i sat down one sunday evening and went through the services list..and did research...and disabled alot of services...and now boot takes 15sec max..shuttdown i dont bother since its on my main machine it always stays on..and also i can play a few selection of games using my onboard graphics which is quite an acheivement

now your goin to say well services are required to keep the OS stable and sercure..to be frank not really..if you know what you are doing the by having a firewall/router and anti-virues installed its all the protection your gonna need

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both the sound and network stacks have been redone in Vista, hence whya number of network cards and sound cards do not have support yet. the new stacks are indeed faster (at least the network stack) and the sound stack will be very nice if sound companies finally get some drivers out for it, XPs network stack was good but lets not forget that it is around 10 years old, it was never designed to work with the amounts of data that some people push through it now, gig and 10-gig networks?? no one in their right mind would have though those would be around in 10 years, the XP stack works with this but not very inefficantly, the XP stack also doesn't have native support for IPv6, which will be a very real problem in the coming years.

@saugatak, back porting this stack to XP probably won't work as again, this is a 10 year jump in technology. the way that XP work with the stack and the way that Vista works with it are very different and no, i doubt the stack is a slightly modified BSD stack.

i just want to ask this, why did they need to redo the sound part of windows? the sound portion works fine for everyone. :blink:

the network i can understand, it doesnt work too well for me. i go to browse other computers on my network through my wifi network, and 1) its slow and 2) it crashes my router :wacko:

Edited by Cygnus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...