FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Vista. Worth it?





Craeft
ALrighty, in actuality, I know what my opinion is on this, but I want to hear others', in hopes of changing my own. I am building a gaming/design system and I'm afraid I will need to throw Vista on it for the 64 bit support. Anyone out there who uses Vista Ultimate, tell me your thoughts. Do you think it's worth it or should I go with XP? Personally, I am still using Win2K because I hate XP. I guess my main question about Vista is, do you see it holding onto the market for a while? The reason I ask is because I have heard mixed opinions on this. Some say it will go the way it did when it was called LongHorn. However, the fact that it is now standard OS installed on over the market PCs tells me differently. I WOULD just go Linux, but there's too small of a group of programs that will run on Linux. Being a gamer and designer, I need the flexibility of program options.
I know that Vista is a resource hog. I shouldn't have to compensate for the software by uber-upgrading the hardware... but that's Windows for ya. Here's what I will be running on the system:

Asus Crosshair MOBO
4GB (2GBx2) PC2 6400 Patriot
GeForce 8800 GT (or GTX - Haven't decided yet. Benchmarks between the two are all over the place)
AMD XP6400 2xCore
1TB WD Caviar
Running off a 650W PS


Anyway, what do you all think? Vista: Worth the install?
LukeakaDanish
Vista: not worth it - even with that computer (its awesome, congrats) Vista will still feel slow, and the millions of security dialogs will still drive you mad.

Get XP - the best gaming OS by a large margin. Then dual-boot linux and if you wanna give it a try get a vista trial. You won't want to leave XP though Razz
Craeft
Well, if I do that, I'll probably stick with 2K over XP. From a gamer's and tech's standpoint, I hate xp. I'm actually thinking about throwing Linux on another hard drive for dual boot anyway, rather than partition. So far, I have pretty much seen very similar responses about Vista, but the only time I have ever experienced it was on the phone end of tech support for Comcast... and we never got an emulator... so yeah. The issues you mentioned... do they seem like bugs that Windows will work out? Or do they seem more like integrated system actions, i.e. "Working as intended"? I know it's REALLY resource heavy. I was hoping they'd have fixed that by now. since the damned thing's been out a year now.
LukeakaDanish
Networking/filehandling is slow in a bugged way - but that will be improved with sp1 out very soon.

Security / general rubbish performance is not a bug...and it'll stay that way. Also I should mention that many older programs don't really work on vista (counter strike 1.6 has to go into software mode on my laptop)
Craeft
LukeakaDanish wrote:
Networking/filehandling is slow in a bugged way - but that will be improved with sp1 out very soon.


Well, from what I can tell, Networking/filehandling is bogus in ME through XP. hehe.. Still fighting with my friggin network places. Have to go in manually with //ipaddress. ugh.

Quote:


Security / general rubbish performance is not a bug...and it'll stay that way.



Is it a firewall thing? If so, I have no qualms about shutting down Windows Firewall and installing Sygate. Or is it all their security things they think we want and integrate into the OS?

Quote:

Also I should mention that many older programs don't really work on vista (counter strike 1.6 has to go into software mode on my laptop)


Ugh. Well, the bright side is that all the newer games coming out are 64bit Vista supported blah blah blah... but sometimes, I want to throw in an old C&C game or something. For games that are playable on Vista, how's the resource allocation/FPS for the game? Is it lagged by the OS? Also, do you do any design and rendering? Video, image, etc? If so, how are your render times compared to an XP box?

Sorry for all the questions, but I am seriously Vista ignorant.
ssthanapati
Well learn from a suferer (i.e. me) and go for XP

Cant help as my system came preloaded with Vista Evil or Very Mad
Craeft
ssthanapati wrote:
Well learn from a suferer (i.e. me) and go for XP

Cant help as my system came preloaded with Vista Evil or Very Mad


haha... fair enough.
NovaBreak
Craeft wrote:
I WOULD just go Linux, but there's too small of a group of programs that will run on Linux. Being a gamer and designer, I need the flexibility of program options.

What do you define as small? IMO, there are plenty of options out there for gaming/designing. If you want something from Windoze, all you have to do is get WINE to emulate it for ya.
DoctorBeaver
I loathe and despise Vista. It is the slowest, most cumbersome, resource-grabbing and annoying OS I have ever experienced. I don't want flashy graphics with everything. I don't want to be constantly bugged by security warnings. I don't want my software to fall over every few minutes or fail to load at all.

I want my PC to be fast & reliable. I want my PC to run my software. I want my PC to WORK!

I'm a recent convert to Linux and I wish I'd made the change sooner. I still have XP on a couple of my PCs as I use software for which there is, as yet, no viable Linux alternative. But as soon as some becomes available, XP goes in the dustbin.

In my opinion, the dustbin is where Vista should have gone before it was even released.
misterXY
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332
Vista & XP SP2 head on. Shocked
Craeft
NovaBreak wrote:
Craeft wrote:
I WOULD just go Linux, but there's too small of a group of programs that will run on Linux. Being a gamer and designer, I need the flexibility of program options.

What do you define as small? IMO, there are plenty of options out there for gaming/designing. If you want something from Windoze, all you have to do is get WINE to emulate it for ya.


What do you define as acceptable? Linux using resources, and then the emulator using resources, and then the program using resources. Resources stack. I don't see an emulator as an option. It's nothing more than eating more resources that could be used for the rendering process.
Craeft
DoctorBeaver wrote:
I loathe and despise Vista. It is the slowest, most cumbersome, resource-grabbing and annoying OS I have ever experienced. I don't want flashy graphics with everything. I don't want to be constantly bugged by security warnings. I don't want my software to fall over every few minutes or fail to load at all.

I want my PC to be fast & reliable. I want my PC to run my software. I want my PC to WORK!

I'm a recent convert to Linux and I wish I'd made the change sooner. I still have XP on a couple of my PCs as I use software for which there is, as yet, no viable Linux alternative. But as soon as some becomes available, XP goes in the dustbin.

In my opinion, the dustbin is where Vista should have gone before it was even released.


yeah. I've been hearing a lot of that, it seems. So far, I haven't heard one person have a good word for Vista other than "It's pretty." I feel the same way you do about the "pretty". I want function so I can make OTHER things pretty. My OS should be just that... my OS, nothing more.

Thanks for the input. I have decided that I AM going to dual boot with Linux... but so far, it's looking like I am gonna stick to Win2K for the one HD.
Craeft
misterXY wrote:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332
Vista & XP SP2 head on. Shocked


Excellent. Thakns for that. Very useful info. I wish he would have compared from a designer's standpoint (i.e. render times for images, video, and audio). But definitely lets some key info in. Thanks for the post.
thylac
Vista uses a huge amount of resources while just sitting at the desktop doing absolutely nothing. Even with the aero thing turned off.

For comparison, my XP system uses only 150ish mb of RAM sitting at the desktop doing nothing. And thats with a bunch of things running in the system tray. Vista uses 3-5 times as many resources for doing even less. Why?!

Every resource the OS uses for some stupid reason is one less resource availible for gaming or other applications. If you have a 2gb system on Vista, you really only have around 1.5gb for use for games. I have about 1.8gb free for use for games. I get 300mb more RAM just for using a less bloated OS. And thats a lowball number. Vista probably uses at least a gig to run smoothly.

Also, consider the vast amount of compatibility issues going on. If you're going to use Vista, expect to be extremely annoyed as you try to find working device driver versions for almost everything. Same thing with other applications, such as games. Soooo many issues.

I refuse to "upgrade" to an inferior OS. Vista costs more to do less. No thanks.
csoftdev
your specification is definitely more than sufficient to support windows vista but it uses a lot of resources and I still prefer windows XP SP2 than windows vista as it consumes much less resources and I like the interface and the way things work better under windows XP SP2 than windows vista.
jembo
yeah...
although your computer's spec is like that, you will get mad using vista
because i think, this windows version security is too strict
dude_xyx
I think window XP is the best choice at the moment. Vista is not 100% perfect they are still fixing bugs.
pll
LukeakaDanish wrote:
the millions of security dialogs will still drive you mad.

Desactivate them.

If you wanna play with this computer (seems to be a gamer PC) get windows XP.
Craeft
Right on. Thanks everyone. I went ahead and got xp-64 bit. I hate to use XP, but I don't want to deal with the Vista issue. 100% feedback was negative on Vista. I was even asking people in coffee houses who I saw had it as well. Even the people who liked it said, "If you're using it for gaming and design, don't get it." So... XP 64 bit it is. All the pieces/parts to the computer should be here in a matter of days. *big cheesy grin*
pll
Will you send us pictures of your new computer ?
I'd be curious to see that if you do.
Donutey
I threw Vista on my laptop when I got the free upgrade cd, and over the long run it was a very bad idea. Since I didn't do a clean install there are all sorts of issues with various programs that were fine under xp, but have issues under vista, or have different/updated versions for vista.

Also, vista doesn't recognize my *brand new* samsung lcd correctly, this probably isn't entirely vista's fault (some of it has to do with the intel vid card drivers), but compatibility issues pop up way too often.

Since its during the school year and I really don't have time to change OSs, but as soon as I get a good free weekend I'm just going to wipe the hard drive and reinstall xp and ubuntu. After that I'll probably just wait it out until Windows 7, and skip vista entirely.

If you install vista, make sure to do a clean install, because I think about half the problems I've had with vista are because the upgrade process doesn't work very well...
Craeft
pll wrote:
Will you send us pictures of your new computer ?
I'd be curious to see that if you do.


Are you kidding me? I don't have money for a stupid camera now! LOL...


But if I can manage to get the theatre light stuff working, I'll definitely post some pics. Smile
Da Rossa
Vista is not worth yet UNLESS you have a very powerful PC (4GB ram+, Core2Extreme, Dual GeForce 8800 with SLI) and if you are intending to play the latest games taking advantage of the Directx10. Otherwise, use XP and be happy with it.
ssthanapati
Da Rossa wrote:
Vista is not worth yet UNLESS you have a very powerful PC (4GB ram+, Core2Extreme, Dual GeForce 8800 with SLI) and if you are intending to play the latest games taking advantage of the Directx10. Otherwise, use XP and be happy with it.


Trust me... Vista is still useless even if u have a powerful PC... Cuz XP will give u much better performance
Da Rossa
ssthanapati wrote:
Da Rossa wrote:
Vista is not worth yet UNLESS you have a very powerful PC (4GB ram+, Core2Extreme, Dual GeForce 8800 with SLI) and if you are intending to play the latest games taking advantage of the Directx10. Otherwise, use XP and be happy with it.


Trust me... Vista is still useless even if u have a powerful PC... Cuz XP will give u much better performance


What about DX 10?
©Wolfie
Vista supports x64 much better than XP x64 or XP x32... I would just try the upgrade and see how your system will work on Vista. I guess that it won't be that bad! Wink Just try it.

A simple dual-boot.
Craeft
Well, running XP x64 and so far... not too shabby. This system is quick, I'll give it that. Logged into City of Villains and turned all the settings to the highest they'd go, then jumped in the middle of an AoE fest... smooth as silk. No chop, no lag... BEAUTIFUL!!!

Then... I looked at my CPU temp. The one place I cut corners with this system was the CPU heatsink. It gets WAY too hot. I won't be able to play anything on it until i get a new heatsink/fan. Running at about 47ºC at idle, and when I'm in game in the middle of all that AoE fun, it runs at about 50% load... at 68ºC. OUCH!!!!!

But anyway, that's for another thread. Smile
csoftdev
don't try. it is a very bad OS. it chews up all your memory. use linux. go go linux. linux is the best.
ovidiuo
I have heard that Vista will have the same faith as Windows Millenium.

I have tested, don't like it. Many friends of mine had the same experience and they've stoped using it.
And when you think Microsoft sold tens of millions of copys.
Craeft
csoftdev wrote:
don't try. it is a very bad OS. it chews up all your memory. use linux. go go linux. linux is the best.


As soon as they make good design software for Linux, MMOs linux compatible, and make cross-platforming Linux a little easier, I will. But, as it states waaaaaaay up there, I will be dual-booting Linux.
DanielXP
I really hate vista.

Them security popup things get really anoying. you can even change the date/time without getting one.

I turned mine off!
Da Rossa
Craeft wrote:
csoftdev wrote:
don't try. it is a very bad OS. it chews up all your memory. use linux. go go linux. linux is the best.


As soon as they make good design software for Linux, MMOs linux compatible, and make cross-platforming Linux a little easier, I will. But, as it states waaaaaaay up there, I will be dual-booting Linux.


In your case, what do use Linux for and Vista, in your dualboot?
pugboy
I would go for Windows Vista, and dual boot. Vista looks good, and runs some newer game (Halo Very Happy), but old stuff will crash quite a bit.
Da Rossa
A trusted friend of the Computer Science field said that Vista is actually the best thing around for home users, specially if you have a good hardware. According to him, you won't miss XP. What about it?
Craeft
Da Rossa wrote:
A trusted friend of the Computer Science field said that Vista is actually the best thing around for home users, specially if you have a good hardware. According to him, you won't miss XP. What about it?


By "home users", though... I would assume he's speaking of Joe Schmo Soccer Dad who has a home PC for various household tasks and random browsing and the like. Would I be wrong in that assumption?
Da Rossa
Indeed, I don't know. My grandfather has Vista since feb/2007 and I've seen a lot of bugs and instabilities so far. Hope they've been corrected. However Vista is still very hogging and some said that it has the slowest file transfer rate (between two partitions, or copying a large file) of all know OS'. True?
Craeft
Da Rossa wrote:
Indeed, I don't know. My grandfather has Vista since feb/2007 and I've seen a lot of bugs and instabilities so far. Hope they've been corrected. However Vista is still very hogging and some said that it has the slowest file transfer rate (between two partitions, or copying a large file) of all know OS'. True?


Well, as I said earlier, I went ahead with XP x64 and so far, I really like it. The only thing that bothers me is some of the incompatibility issues, but everything I NEED seems to install ok, as do my games (knock on wood). The only thing that didn't install that I use (thus far) is Adobe Premiere. That only bothers me because that's a pretty pricey program, but I can still use it on my 32 bit lag system if I need to. I have the video vegas on this one at least.
Oh. And my finale 2005 won't install either. That's really a bummer, but again, I can use that on my 32 bit system and since it's really not a resource hog, that's not too big of a deal.
My next test is Terragen. If that one doesn't install here, I will cry. That program is such a resource hog that I need that extra boost.
Da Rossa
I think that the softwre writers should give more attention to the x64 platform...
ssthanapati
Da Rossa wrote:
ssthanapati wrote:
Da Rossa wrote:
Vista is not worth yet UNLESS you have a very powerful PC (4GB ram+, Core2Extreme, Dual GeForce 8800 with SLI) and if you are intending to play the latest games taking advantage of the Directx10. Otherwise, use XP and be happy with it.


Trust me... Vista is still useless even if u have a powerful PC... Cuz XP will give u much better performance


What about DX 10?



Ya thats there.... In my case i am really not bothered much about it as i dont play lotta games
Da Rossa
Does DX 10 matter for other kinds of applications and uses other than games?
swizzy
ovidiuo wrote:
I have heard that Vista will have the same faith as Windows Millenium.

I have tested, don't like it. Many friends of mine had the same experience and they've stoped using it.
And when you think Microsoft sold tens of millions of copys.


did you only look at Vista from an end-user's view, or did u ever try messing with it... Vista is 'Stable' 'Secure' and good looking, the ms guys proved it...
Craeft
Quote:
the ms guys proved it...


nuff said. I'll pass.
cvkien
i think it worth IF they change their licensing pattern. if not mistaken, you only can activate your vista copy with new hardware upgrade for about 2 or 3 times. but you still can activate it if you maintain you hardware without upgrading it as many times as you want. and after you activate more than the limit, then you have to purchase another license, if i am not wrong. But the licensing is too risky for us if the key is stolen and another person use to activate their vista.

and for vista on gaming or video or audio or graphic users, it requires more rams, speed and graphic card. but in fact a low vista hardware requirement can makes xp fly.
oskuro
In 2 words:

VISTA SUCKS

Rolling Eyes
Da Rossa
oskuro wrote:
In 2 words:

VISTA SUCKS

Rolling Eyes


Tell us why.

I've tried recently the ultimate version, appeared to be ok.
gaby007
i don't have a really good pc but vista works fine ( xp S***) Razz

AMD Athlon 64 3200+
1536MB RAM DDR
300GB
A7300 GT nVidia
Da Rossa
This is more than enough for Vista.
Vista is GOOD, however it is not NECESSARY so far. XP is more than fine and it's still liter. However, if you're intending to go gaming, then go for Vista with DX 10. Also, if you buy a brand new notebook that already comes with Vista, use it. Smile
LostOverThere
gaby007 wrote:
i don't have a really good pc...


When compared to a super computer. But that's still a real nice machine you've got there.
welshsteve
I've had very little exposure to Visat as yet. It takes a little getting used to, but I like it.

One bit of advice I would give to anyone wanting to upgrade to Vista is, make sure you check ALL your hardware is compatible before doing so. Either that or buy a new machine with Vista pre-loaded instead.
Da Rossa
That's right, the new machines, specially the new notebooks, come with a fine Vista copy. They seldom have hog problems.
FriBogdan
I have windows Vista Business x64 installed on my laptop (2 Gb ram) and i'm not so pleased. At first that Cache function looked promising but now, after a few weeks, i can't tell that windows has loaded my frequently used programs into my RAM. When i start my favorite music player it still loads it from my HDD, when i start Firefox it still loads it from HDD... same with a few other programs.

So the cache thing is not working well and all my ram is occupied. This sucks!! I can't go back to Windows XP because my laptop has drivers only for Vista + a program that starts the fan when returning from stand_by ONLY works on vista Sad.

ACER 5315 ... please don't buy this sh*t.
Da Rossa
Just tell me something: the caching function is only Vista's x64, or do we have it in x86 and XP?
Why did you go for the 64bits?
HamsterMan
welshsteve wrote:
Either that or buy a new machine with Vista pre-loaded instead.

And definitely do not trust the vista capable stickers. They're a total scam.

But why waste computer performence on a hoggy os, even if it happened to have DirectX10

Lets just hope these guys get it going on xp aswell.
http://www.technospot.net/blogs/download-directx-10-for-windows-xp-from-alky-project/
Yes, apparently it works, despite what ms said.
dirkvb
VISTA SUCKS

Everytime you want to start up something he ask: are youo sure?
Why the hell will i start it up? To run it, bloody hell.

And you can turn it off, have i read, but you need to dig deep into the registery.
And my version of vista is new so i don't want to let i crash nowalready.

So i would say: don't buy vista or if you really have to buy it, be sad and hope for and new version.

Greetz
lszanto
Personally as most others have said, I would say don't use vista. I have had it on my laptop and after 1 day I just completely removed it.If you want to upgrade from Win2K though but not XP I have heard that Windows Server 2003 can be turned into a pretty powerful gaming machine and a normal os as seen here http://geekswithblogs.net/bpaddock/archive/2004/12/07/16989.aspx and http://www.msfn.org/win2k3/. Just my thoughts, hope it helps.
scutari
I don't like it, but with every computer you buy, you will find vista, so it isn't possible to leave it away. I like only the way vista is designed and security is much better but not anything else.
kitsrock
well, dell now ships some of their desktops and laptops with Ubuntu pre-installed instead of Vista. That being said, I think you can choose to take XP over vista on some models as well. Sadly, this is not the case for Canadian customers. Dell still refuses to sell linux preloaded models due to problem with French keyboard support or whatever. I suppose it doesn't hurt to build my own desktops like all my friends have been doing for years, but oh well.

p.s. for those who don't know what Ubuntu is, it is a linux distro aimed towards out-of-the-box functionality and ease of use. Wikipedia link here and Ubuntu website link here.
kansloos
Many of Vista's features are too bloated, causing stuff to go slow, for example that horrid sidebar, apart from being an ugly and space consuming, it also slowdown boot and the rest of the system quite a lot.

Xp is just more responsive and it is more stable.
Craeft
kitsrock wrote:
well, dell now ships some of their desktops and laptops with Ubuntu pre-installed instead of Vista. That being said, I think you can choose to take XP over vista on some models as well. Sadly, this is not the case for Canadian customers. Dell still refuses to sell linux preloaded models due to problem with French keyboard support or whatever. I suppose it doesn't hurt to build my own desktops like all my friends have been doing for years, but oh well.

p.s. for those who don't know what Ubuntu is, it is a linux distro aimed towards out-of-the-box functionality and ease of use. Wikipedia link here and Ubuntu website link here.


Yeah.. I have a copy of Ubuntu. I just haven't played with it yet. hehe... I am gonna throw that on my old computer here, in time, and play with it a bit. The amount that I've played with Linux, I liked it, but I am not Linux saavy so I need to first put it on a computer I don't mind "breaking".
LostOverThere
Ubuntu 8.04, Hardy Heron came out this week, so before you try Ubuntu you may consider upgrading your copy.

On a more on topic note, a couple of software hobbyists have managed to get DirectX 10 running on Windows XP.
cvkien
if i'm doing programming or any editing, i would like to use windows xp. Windows Vista is for entertainment, not for work, i mean for graphic, video, sound etc.

But if your computer is fast enough, get a x64 and add up your ram to 8gb. i think that should make you happy.
surdy
Vista not worth it . Even Windows 95 looked better to me.
Just a bloated OS that takes all the system resources in the world to do nothing.


If you want Windows ..XP would be the best choice.

If you don;t like that too ...Go for LINIUX !! Very Happy
Boffel
Vista? Of course!

Actually its not many reasons to use vista, but it is one.

The search form Very Happy I really like it!


Vista is not so much slower either, and everything works perfect!

Layout is also cooler, and control panel better, nothing is wrong with vista.
HamsterMan
Boffel wrote:
Layout is also cooler, and control panel better, nothing is wrong with vista.

Well it's really just a taste thing.

I find it very annoying when people instantly yell at you for not loving the vista interface. I mean, they could have made it alot more neutral for starters. I'm not a huge fan of all those animated copy bars and such and the network panel... ugh Sad .
FriBogdan
Da Rossa wrote:
Just tell me something: the caching function is only Vista's x64, or do we have it in x86 and XP?
Why did you go for the 64bits?


All operating systems have the some cache function enabled. For example windows XP has a cache function.. but.. how the cache works? Well.. if you access a program and then close it, windows will keep some components, of that program, into the memory (for a certain amount of time).

All the cache thing is based on 2 laws... but i don't know how to translate them in english (temporal and spacial locality law.. if this sounds weird ... it probably is Smile) ). The law with the time tells us that if you access a certain data.. it will probably be accessed in the near future. The law with the space tells us that if you access a location (on your disk, for example) the data near by will also be accessed in the near future.

So if you have something like

x-4...x-3...x-2...x-1...x...x+1...x+2...x+3...x+4

and you access x-1...x...x+1 ... windows and almost any other OS will load x-3, x-2, x+2, x+3 into memory.

So... hm... the cache exists ... but i'm talking about preloading programs. I don't want to access a program and after that that program will be present in my memory. (this is the good ol' cache function)
I want, if i have sufficient memory, to load the programs that i usually use into memory, in background ... so when i will run those programs for the first time they will load very quickly from the main memory. THIS is what the Preload thing does.

That is in theory ... but Vista is kinda stupid.... and it doesn't preload the programs very efficient Smile. Linux users have this function implemented much much better Neutral.

Windows XP (or below) doesn't have a preload function

Smile

Hm... i've choose the x64 version... because i have a Celeron m540 and it supports 64 bits instructions Smile. Some things... will run better. But... i bet that i will get the same amount of performance using my system with a 32 bits OS versus a 64 bits OS. The programs today are not optimized to use 64 bits instructors.

BUT ... the main advantage is that... if i get bored from time to time.. i can write some ASM code using 64 bits registers Very Happy (asm = assembler)
Da Rossa
Thanks a lot for the explanation Bogdan!! This was very clear!

Only one clarification: did you mean that XP doesn't have the caching function or did you mean that the below versions (2k and down) don't, while XP does? If so, can't I manually manage it somehow? A registry tweak, a special program to do that? Smile
FriBogdan
I know that only VISTA has the preload function (all the Windows Operating systems have a cache, but they do't preload into memory different programs).

I recommend reading T H I S tutorial. Some concepts are explained very well and i think these are really interesting things. It doesn't hurt to know the basics Smile.

" Locality Of References
This important fundamental observation comes from properties of programs. The most important program property that we regularly exploit is locality of references : Programs tend to reuse data and instructions they have used recently.

90/10 rule comes from empirical observation:
"A program spends 90% of its time in 10% of its code"


An implication of locality is that we can predict with reasonable accuracy what instructions and data a program will use in the near future based on its accesses in the recent past.

Two different types of locality have been observed:
Temporal locality: states that recently accessed items are likely to be accessed in the near future.

Spatial locality: says that items whose addresses are near one another tend to be referenced close together in time. " (from the above web site)
petesam
Vista is bad if you were expecting a quantum jump from the previous Win XP os.

Vista is nothing but an enhanced version of XP. So if you already XP, you are gonna like Vizta better...as is the case with me. But if you never liked XP than you will hate vista the same way.

The one enhancement I liked about Vista is that it asks for admin confirmation before taking any critical action. So that takes care of almost all malicious software that wants to work 'behind the your back'. Now that takes care of the headache that you get when you very badly want to plug in a pen derive....but not sure of what all viruses it may bring in to your system.
FriBogdan
petesam wrote:
Vista is bad if you were expecting a quantum jump from the previous Win XP os.

Vista is nothing but an enhanced version of XP. So if you already XP, you are gonna like Vizta better...as is the case with me. But if you never liked XP than you will hate vista the same way.

The one enhancement I liked about Vista is that it asks for admin confirmation before taking any critical action. So that takes care of almost all malicious software that wants to work 'behind the your back'. Now that takes care of the headache that you get when you very badly want to plu in a pen derive....but not sure of what all viruses it may bring in to your system.


You LIKE that ? It is horrible !!!! I know what i'm doing on my pc. I know what my security programs that i have installed are capable of (a poor windows firewall and avast as an antivirus) and most important, again, i know what i'm doing Smile. I am the admin for my PC.. why does he need confirmation.

I can browse the net, visiting all kind of websites... i know that is not good to click on every banner that tells you that you are the 945393922533 user (so you are a winner; click to get the prize...Neutral ) and again, armed with only basic knowledge about "stuff", i wont get infected with a virus or some kind of trojan and i will not collect any garbage Smile. In fact i don't even see banners any more Smile). Etc, etc... it doesn't matter. I've disabled that function after 10 minutes Smile) when i've installed vista for the first time. I've had to disable the windows defender too... because it is useless.

For example a free program but with exceptional features and detection is Search and Destroy. Why use something that eats my memory like windows defender ? It never detected anything for me. I think it has a database of 50 different malicious codes Smile) Or... why should i let Security Center to run in background? (to eat memory and CPU cycles ?) Disable, disable Smile ... this is the solution. You can make Vista bearable this way. So... keep in mind Smile

BTW... critical action ? Like... running my favorite music program or transferring some files with my favorite file manager ? (Total commander)
Ask yourself this: when you will be noticed by windows defender that a "critical" action needs your approval, you are sure that you can correctly identify the process or what he tells you ? What if it is a legitimate program, and because it has a funny name or you don't know it (because if you did you didn't need a confirmation dialog) you will block it? I'm not sure that you are capable of undoing this Smile). It is very hard to find what you want when using Microsoft security products... especially a block list or something with advanced settings
petesam
Quote:
I know what i'm doing on my pc. I know what my security programs that i have installed are capable of (a poor windows firewall and avast as an antivirus) and most important, again, i know what i'm doing Smile. I am the admin for my PC.. why does he need confirmation.

I can browse the net, visiting all kind of websites... i know that is not good to click on every banner that tells you that you are the 945393922533 user (so you are a winner; click to get the prize...Neutral ) and again, armed with only basic knowledge about "stuff", i wont get infected with a virus or some kind of trojan and i will not collect any garbage Smile


I was specifically referring to infected pen drives when I talked about accidentally letting viruses in. I re-read my blog and I couldn't find a line where I had praised windows defender or windows firewall. FYI: I don't use either of them. And dude if you are telling me you never got your PC infected, you probably just started using it yesterday.

Also I am yet to get confirmation pop-ups while opening music players or any other program for that matter on Vista. But since you mentioned the problem, I will wait for them appear for some normal program....I am a very patient man.

PS.: i ain't no microsoft fan either. Just making a honest assessment of an O/S i have come across.
FriBogdan
I did get infected (not once!)... in really stupid ways Neutral. I had some issues using nod32 (with license) and i didn't want to pay for an upgrade because i've tested nod v3 and at that point it kept my CPU at 100% very often. So... i've searched for alternatives and decided about BitDefender. Because i didn't want to pay this time for this anti-virus solution, i opened my browser and i downloaded several patches Neutral. I scanned the files using http://virusscan.jotti.org/ .. it didn't find anything. After applying the patch + a restart i could not turn off my pc Smile) , my Bitdefender stopped, my firewall was dead, ALT+F4 combi was not working, ctrl+alt+del not working, etc.. every method that i had to control my pc or at least to see what is going on was gone Smile).

So... it was my fault. Now i'm using AVAST (active) and AVG (inactive, a scan once in a while)

"I was specifically referring to infected pen drives"

Hm... yeah... you are right in this case. You can't avoid infection every time you use a pen drive in a public PC (like at school).

And about those confirmation dialogs ... please disable them. I don't think the programmers will soon implement new features... to avoid those popups. For example ... i like to delete my current playing song (again... an example with a music program) with a combination of keys (fast, efficient). If i had confirmation dialogs ... Neutral . Imagine that i have Vista on my laptop and i'm using the touchpad. Moving the mouse cursor is not an easy task, even if i enable that function that makes my cursor to jump right over the default button when i need to confirm something (because if it goes to the YES/NO button, click it and than you have to move the cursor back to the previous position).

Oh... anyway... you (or anybody) have the right to have personal ideas Smile. Use Vista as you like but in time you will see that statistically the confirmation dialog never helped you Neutral.

As for OS that are open source... they require a massive amount of work Neutral. Many very well optimized programs for windows are not implemented to run on a Linux distro. You can replace them with something, of cource, but you won't get the same efficiency. Another problem is that because hardware providers don't implement linux driveres... sometimes you can't use the full potential of some components (or you must try to install Windows drivers Neutral and this is usually a tricky thing). So... in many cases you can't really use a Linux distro over Windows.

P.S. Many of the things above are off-topic. Sorry for that.
Ghost Rider103
If you are already using Windows XP, and are doing fine with it at the moment, then no, there really is no reason to change.

Vista, in my opinion, is not any slower than XP is. If anything, it is actually faster, including the start up, is about twice as fast as XP's.

I don't understand why everyone is complaing, there is nothing wrong with my Vista. I have had it for about a year now, and never have I had a single problem with it, and it runs very smoothly.

The only thing was when I first got it, it took some time to get used to the new layout and learning where everything was.
Da Rossa
The boot may be faster, but the usage is hindered by the high hardware needed to run.
cvkien
ms windows nowadays selling with higher price. and that cause a lot of pirated copy. if ms cut down its price, i'm sure i'll say vista is 100% worth it. but because of the price, so far, i'll say it 60% worth.
blk3
XP is enough for me at the moment, maybe I'll think of touching Vista the time when the successor to Vista is on the horizon. It usually takes some time (thru service packs and updates) before an OS really gets to what it should really be doing. right now Vista is on its first SP, I guess it still has a long way to go before being considered very stable.
dude_xyx
What I see is that , if you have XP already I don't see too many reasons to upgrade to Vista for the price tag they have put on it. For me windows XP has all I need ( for the moment ). Anyone have setup Apache/php/MySql in Vista ? This is something I like to know.
Related topics
Windows Vista Official Thread
Windows Vista Virus!!
windows vista sidebar and SmartbarXP
Windows Vista and Priacy
Windows Vista - An Introduction
Vista update or not update?
Do you think you're going to get vista?
How's Vista?
Vista or XP?
about vista
How is Windows Vista?
The 200 club
Do you think that Microsoft Vista is Worth it?
To Upgrade or Not to Upgrade?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Software

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.