Vista is very disappointing

[spottydog10]

Er, I'm getting to the desktop in about 20-25 secs.

Didnt do a great deal of disabling in vlite, just defender and a couple of bits.

I have used the cmd defrag which is much better (c: -v -w)

Woof!

Spot

[arvind]

@amocanu.. every operating system made by microsoft, will run at an acceptable speed only after it's been stripped down by nuhi's super duper progs..

Edited March 2, 2007 by arvind

[emodel]

The v-lite version i made is 777mb and installed about 3000mb ..and in some way i disabled the right things to have it running the way it does!

Now the question is, how is it possible just to make an OS so that its so big !?

Are there 4 or 5 movies installed maybe ?

On my laptop, xp is less than 300mb (installed)...

(which is still 270mb too much for what it does)

[Mister Brian]

emodel, when I installed the full version of Vista on my PC and saw that it sat on eight GB of my HDD, my jaw dropped. Then when I saw how much RAM it was using, I was appalled. vLite helped, but it's my impression that a lightened Vista is never going to beat a lightened XP.

I timed my boots with a stopwatch. Vista - 60s to desktop, no apps installed. XP - 20s to desktop, then it loads apps for 15s.

I don't think I'm the only poweruser who's going to wait until I own a DirectX 10 video card and games that require it, to switch to Vista.

[emodel]

hehe

As i'll never need a dx10 card (as i only play on emulators), i wont need to "upgrade" to vista (lucky me)

The shame is that some people who use 2k/xp/2k3 buy it, thinking its an upgrade.

It would be so nice to see people boycot it (sure, for new pc's, we cant do anything).

I needed to switch from 98 to nt5 kernel, because of stability, now i dont NEED to switch anymore, but i'll HAVE to at some point, and thats a shame.

Still, i'll use xp for many years to come.

Now, if only FL studio worked on linux....

[sideeffect]

every operating system made by microsoft, will run at an acceptable speed only after it's first service pack

every operating system made by microsoft, will be without the bloat in the server edition.

Namely, Windows Server 2008 (presently named Codename Longhorn Server).

I never used XP, I switched directly from 2000 to Server 2003. Some of you may know why I plan to do the same with Vista and use Server 2008 instead, as soon as I can get some of Vista components to work on it.

Yes i agree. I think windows XP x64 is the best ever Microsoft operating system. Its so fast and lean and so much faster than vista.

[Dobby]

I've never liked XP. It's the Fisherprice interface:

Programs like XPize really helped with this but still I just got used to XP rather than really liked it.

Now Vista on the otherhand caught my eye from the first moment I saw it. I was avoiding it until I saw an RC release on a collueages machine and I was instantly wowed. I guess the Aero interface has really suckered in a lot of people!

Still, after installing the RTM on my own machine (the x64 edition) I was impressed that everything just worked. I'd heard a few incompatibility horror stories but I think these were mostly RC and beta related. The only issue I had was I needed to get the drivers for my Wifi card (good job I had another machine!).

A few programs like Nero 6 OEM no longer worked but hey Windows Media Player has burning support for Data and Audo CD/DVD so that's cool. I don't need anything fancy and I certainly don't need Nero 7 bloatware. Can you believe that. Once upon a time I would have been booing the bloated WMP and hailing Winamp. How the tides turn.

Other things that really impressed me were the StartMenu search/run feature. That rocks! It's so powerful. And indexed searching is so much better now. On the whole I find that I have to do less configuration after install than with XP (Of course I automated this with nLite and post install scripts but **** that was a lot of work).

I remember when XP first came out. What a nightmare. It really was post SP1 (maybe even SP2) that things really became stable but I'm impressed with Vista's stability out of the box.

My only gripe is with games. They suck. Someone mentioned (on another forum) that this is due to some software emulation in DX9 on Vista. I don't know if this is true but it seems a little strange that they would let DX9 suffer just to get DX10 in. I mean there's like one game and one GFX card that supports DX10 (Namely Supreme Commander with the GeForce 8800). But like I said I've not verified this claim.

Hopefully though things will improve. Oh I did go and buy two shiney new machines for me and my wife to run Vista on. The things we do hey! Not that my Athlon 64 3700+ with 2GB of RAM couldn't cope but Vista is a good excuse to upgrade and the wife love Vista too. Movie Maker and DVD Authoring are her favorites.

Edited March 8, 2007 by Dobby