Vista, is just a phase

[invitia]

So I'm wondering here, What is wrong with Vista ???? I've been running it for months now and would never go back to plain old XP. For the ones knocking it have you even tried it or are you just making claims because your afraid of change?

Just the fact that it consumes around 60% more resources for doing the same thing as XP without providing anything substancial in return.

If Micro$oft had added artificial intelligence I would understand it, but some 3D realtime renderings, for what? Not many businesses will migrate within the next two years.

[The Chase]

So I'm wondering here, What is wrong with Vista ???? I've been running it for months now and would never go back to plain old XP. For the ones knocking it have you even tried it or are you just making claims because your afraid of change?

Just the fact that it consumes around 60% more resources for doing the same thing as XP without providing anything substancial in return.

not on any of the machines I've had it installed on

[umd]

(...)
But it's soo cool paying through your nose for having an half eaten apple sticker on the hood and officially telling everybody that you know nothing about computers.

ROTFL

[synthetica]

So I'm wondering here, What is wrong with Vista ???? I've been running it for months now and would never go back to plain old XP. For the ones knocking it have you even tried it or are you just making claims because your afraid of change?

Just the fact that it consumes around 60% more resources for doing the same thing as XP without providing anything substancial in return.

If Micro$oft had added artificial intelligence I would understand it, but some 3D realtime renderings, for what? Not many businesses will migrate within the next two years.

Ok if you say so. I have found it to be much faster at doing just about everything, startup, rebooting, launching apps, etc. Not to mention the new Resource Monitor is essential to be able to tweak your system to run the way you want it (not included with XP BTW). Although I have a very powerful machine to begin with so resources are not an issue. I suppose if your running hardware circa 1998 then Vista might not be the best choice.

[bullshark]

So I'm wondering here, What is wrong with Vista ???? I've been running it for months now and would never go back to plain old XP. For the ones knocking it have you even tried it or are you just making claims because your afraid of change?

Just the fact that it consumes around 60% more resources for doing the same thing as XP without providing anything substancial in return.

If Micro$oft had added artificial intelligence I would understand it, but some 3D realtime renderings, for what? Not many businesses will migrate within the next two years.

Ok if you say so. I have found it to be much faster at doing just about everything, startup, rebooting, launching apps, etc. Not to mention the new Resource Monitor is essential to be able to tweak your system to run the way you want it (not included with XP BTW). Although I have a very powerful machine to begin with so resources are not an issue. I suppose if your running hardware circa 1998 then Vista might not be the best choice.

I'm getting conflicting message from this post. Under one hand it suposedly does everything faster while using less ressources, but at the same time you need a newer and powerfull machine to run it?

[laputa_sync]

So I'm wondering here, What is wrong with Vista ???? I've been running it for months now and would never go back to plain old XP. For the ones knocking it have you even tried it or are you just making claims because your afraid of change?

Just the fact that it consumes around 60% more resources for doing the same thing as XP without providing anything substancial in return.

If Micro$oft had added artificial intelligence I would understand it, but some 3D realtime renderings, for what? Not many businesses will migrate within the next two years.

Ok if you say so. I have found it to be much faster at doing just about everything, startup, rebooting, launching apps, etc. Not to mention the new Resource Monitor is essential to be able to tweak your system to run the way you want it (not included with XP BTW). Although I have a very powerful machine to begin with so resources are not an issue. I suppose if your running hardware circa 1998 then Vista might not be the best choice.

I'm getting conflicting message from this post. Under one hand it suposedly does everything faster while using less ressources, but at the same time you need a newer and powerfull machine to run it?

its a conditional message not conflicting.

[bullshark]

So I'm wondering here, What is wrong with Vista ???? I've been running it for months now and would never go back to plain old XP. For the ones knocking it have you even tried it or are you just making claims because your afraid of change?

Just the fact that it consumes around 60% more resources for doing the same thing as XP without providing anything substancial in return.

If Micro$oft had added artificial intelligence I would understand it, but some 3D realtime renderings, for what? Not many businesses will migrate within the next two years.

Ok if you say so. I have found it to be much faster at doing just about everything, startup, rebooting, launching apps, etc. Not to mention the new Resource Monitor is essential to be able to tweak your system to run the way you want it (not included with XP BTW). Although I have a very powerful machine to begin with so resources are not an issue. I suppose if your running hardware circa 1998 then Vista might not be the best choice.

I'm getting conflicting message from this post. Under one hand it suposedly does everything faster while using less ressources, but at the same time you need a newer and powerfull machine to run it?

its a conditional message not conflicting.

Hmmm... No, disagree. If it did run faster with less ressources, you'd only require a slow, old computer to run it, not a new powerfull one; see, conflicting info.

BTW, here's the req for Vista:

*1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor¹).
*1 GB of system memory.
*Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)², Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
*40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
*DVD-ROM Drive³.
*Audio output capability.
*Internet access capability.

Not what I'd call "economical on ressources".

[robogone]

We just bought a new PC for my wife's office - it has twice the RAM of the old one but is about half the speed with Vista instead of XP. What a POS! Wish there was an option to buy with XP instead of Vista!

[bullshark]

We just bought a new PC for my wife's office - it has twice the RAM of the old one but is about half the speed with Vista instead of XP. What a POS! Wish there was an option to buy with XP instead of Vista!

Most vendors (Dell etc..) do give you credit when you take a machine without OS, and you can still buy XP pretty much anywhere, even OEM (just buying a mouse or something of similar low value in any computer place will entitle you to an OEM version).

[laputa_sync]

its a conditional message not conflicting.

Hmmm... No, disagree. If it did run faster with less ressources, you'd only require a slow, old computer to run it, not a new powerfull one; see, conflicting info.

BTW, here's the req for Vista:

*1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor¹).
*1 GB of system memory.
*Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)², Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
*40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
*DVD-ROM Drive³.
*Audio output capability.
*Internet access capability.

Not what I'd call "economical on ressources".

I didn't say it was "economical on resources, i only meant that in order to achieve the higher performance quota you needed higher performing hardware to start with, a familiar concept for many computer technologies. i think that it would nice if Vista ran at 1000% better than XP does on a five year old system, but due to the entire structure of the market that is unlikely.

[Stupid American Pig]

The only item that *really* needs upgrading is the video card. If you want to run AERO then you need a BEEFY DirectX 9 video card. Alot of video processing is offloaded to the GPU, which will have a negative impact on CPU if yer GPU is not up to the job.(the CPU must pickup the slack) HOWEVER, I do find it easier on resources otherwise than XP. You can always disable AERO for XP like performance on lesser video cards.

[bullshark]

I didn't say it was "economical on resources, i only meant that in order to achieve the higher performance quota you needed higher performing hardware to start with, a familiar concept for many computer technologies. i think that it would nice if Vista ran at 1000% better than XP does on a five year old system, but due to the entire structure of the market that is unlikely.

Ahhhh, I get it now; so, Vista on a brand new computer runs faster than XP on a five years old computer does... Who would have guessed? And yes, have to agree here, mighty impressive.

[laputa_sync]

I didn't say it was "economical on resources, i only meant that in order to achieve the higher performance quota you needed higher performing hardware to start with, a familiar concept for many computer technologies. i think that it would nice if Vista ran at 1000% better than XP does on a five year old system, but due to the entire structure of the market that is unlikely.

Ahhhh, I get it now; so, Vista on a brand new computer runs faster than XP on a five years old computer does... Who would have guessed? And yes, have to agree here, mighty impressive.

have you ever seen audio programs use more cpu in later generations?

[Stupid American Pig]

I dont understand why people get heated in a debate like this, its just an OS, and you dont *have* to use it, or even get stressed out about it. I understand the reasons to be leary of it, the DRM is a crappy deal, but its not really MS's fault so much as it is RIAA, MPAA, and associated companies.

However, Since I have used it Ive been happy with it. It does work well for audio, and it hasnt crashed for me in over a month. I leave my PC on all the time, and have only rebooted like 4 times in that period. If you have an older PC then there is no reason to use Vista, if you buy a new one that comes with Vista, never fear, it will work. If you want to get a mac, that is cool too.

[ruud07]

I have Vista running on a dual bootmachine with Windows XP. XP is much more CPU-friendly than Vista, so I am still using XP for music programs and gaming. When running FL Studio for example with a few plugins, XP uses 20% CPU and Vista around 30%.

My 'old' soundcard (Terratec EWX 24/96) is not supported in Vista. The sound is OK, but I can't use my midi-keyboard because Vista can not install the midi-port!

My one year old HP 1020 laserprinter is not yet supported by Hewlett Packard. HP is a sleeping giant company; they just realized Vista is on the market now. Vista printer drivers might be finished in July 2007. First my laserprinter did not work at all, but after a while Vista managed to install another driver for it.

So not all my hardware is supported under Vista, which makes me feel like I did a few years ago while testing a Linux-system. It's even worse now, because I am quite sure Terratec will not support my soundcard at all for Vista .

My computer has a 3 Ghz Intel Hyper Threading processor, 1024 RAM and an ATI 3D videocard with 512 MB memory. I think I would get 2048 RAM when buying a new computer. More is better!

I recommend not to upgrade to Vista, but wait for one year at least, in order to get the support you need. Don't buy Vista for your good 'old' computer with XP now, because XP will be supported for two more years until april 2009. And XP is not bad at all and for me it works faster, because I am used to it.

When you can't wait to try Vista, buy a full version and use it in dual boot with XP!