Why Are You All Against Vista

Vista should only run slowly if you have insufficient RAM (or other hardware).

I don't mind Vista except for some driver compatibility issues and some music files jumping/stuttering.

 

I had 2 gigs of RAM and it was still sluggish compared to XP......I got rid of the Sony Laptop and I now run a Macbook Pro with Windows XP on bootcamp....

 

I'm still waiting for drivers to come out for my hardware...most of the ones available are only beta...plus, you have to use the new MS Office with Vista, which unless you revert it to save as an Office 97 file no one can read it.

 

Vista is much better. It is the best OS from the Microsoft team and more over it is very secure.

 

vista sucks. It is too slow. XP is better.

 

i dont like the interface and it runs slow as anything unless you have dual core.

 

Why use Windows at all?

 

xp is much better

I dont use any of the stupid vista widgets

microsoft needs more moeny so they have to keep releasing expensive operating systems

Hell, windows 98 is better than vista.

 

Yeah clearly 98 was better than vista. The NT branch is horrible! except XP uses that branch as well.

So for the sake of the people saying Vista is just XP with a new skin here are some of the changes that I know of.

SuperFetch
The result of this is the first I/O improving technology, SuperFetch, a new technology designed to cache as much data as RAM space allows. Previously, Windows XP had a more basic implementation of this idea called prefetch, which used trace logs of programs loading in order to help XP optimize the loading sequence. SuperFetch in turn takes things a step further by not only figuring out what data is required to launch an application, but it actually loads this data into memory as space allows so that if it's needed at a later point the data is already in RAM instead of still residing on the hard drive.


ReadyBoost
ReadyBoost functions as a compliment to SuperFetch, giving SuperFetch another place to cache data that - while not as good as RAM - is better than just reading data off of the hard drive. An important distinction however is that while RAM is both quick to access and has high transfer rates, flash memory only offers quick access times, with transfer rates below that of even hard drives. As a result ReadyBoost is only useful in situations where small random data accesses are required, whereas larger transfers that may need sequential access are sent directly to the hard drive. This makes ReadyBoost less readily beneficial than SuperFetch, but with USB flash drives going for under $20/gigabyte, it's a cheap and effective way to boost performance of RAM-limited computers in a number of situations.


Under The Hood: I/O Priority and Networking

Along with working to modify the traditional cache hierarchy for better performance, Vista includes the introduction of several new technologies designed to help applications better utilize disk and network bandwidth. For disk bandwidth, Vista now includes an I/O priority system that allows applications to specify the priority of their I/O operations so that Vista can service the most important operations first, not unlike the priority system for applications. This is in comparison to XP which executes all I/O operations as if they have the same priority, which results in other applications having their own I/O operations slowed down even if they're more important.


Networking
Along with the changes in disk I/O to better maximize disk performance, Vista also implements a new TCP/IP stack - the so-called "Next Generation TCP/IP stack" - that includes new features to better maximize network utilization. However, since networking changes can affect entire networks and not just a single machine, only one of these features - Receive Window Auto-Tuning - is enabled. The other feature - Compound TCP - is disabled due to the potential to interrupt other machines on a network and/or hurt the client's network performance.


Compound TCP
The other significant addition to Vista's TCP/IP stack is Compound TCP, the product of an earlier research project by Microsoft in combining several different known techniques for maximizing bandwidth usage under high latency conditions. Under these conditions, traditional TCP traffic algorithms are reliable but slow to let the sender and receiver increase their windows to fill very large bandwidth-delay products. This is because traditional TCP is inherently a conservative and well behaved system based on reliability and sharing as the most important properties.
Compound TCP on the other hand is the merger of several aggressive algorithms - including Fast TCP, High Speed TCP, TCP Vegas, and TCP Reno - which when combined are far more aggressive at trying to quickly maximize bandwidth usage while maintaining reliability; unfortunately, these algorithms weren't originally designed to work all that well with traditional TCP. To that extent, in order to make Compound TCP safe for use on larger networks, Microsoft has reworked these algorithms so that they are effectively a single algorithm under Compound TCP, and their over-aggressive nature has been removed so that they will not dominate over traditional TCP traffic.
The end result is that while Compound TCP is designed to be safe, it's a cutting-edge technology that is not well tested, and for this reason it is disabled by default on Vista. Longhorn Server will be the first Windows product to ship with it enabled by default when it ships later this year. In our network tests, we have tested Vista both with Compound TCP enabled and disabled so that you can see the results of using it; however, until Compound TCP has undergone some more rigorous testing we would caution that it's not advisable to enable it on home computers or in production environments.



System Restore/Volume Shadow Copy/Previous Versions
When Microsoft released Windows Millennium Edition back in 1999, one of the few novel features in the operating system was a feature called System Restore, which kept regular on-drive backups of system files so that if a new driver, configuration error, or similar event interrupted Windows' ability to function correctly, a user could roll the system back to an earlier and hopefully functional state. This tool was further refined in XP but it remained fundamentally the same; it was a solution to protect the system and not the user.
For Vista, Microsoft has finally extended that protection to the user by integrating one of their technologies developed for Windows Server 2003: Volume Shadow Copy. Volume Shadow Copy can keep multiple copies of a file/directory stored so that if for any reason an older copy of a document needs to be restored, this can be done quickly within Windows by picking among the shadow copies created whenever Server takes a snapshot of the file system. With Vista, Volume Shadow Copy has been integrated into System Restore so that System Restore now uses Volume Shadow Copy for keeping snapshots. This allows System Restore to completely backup all files now and not just system files, and it allows Windows to restore single files instead of entire snapshots.
While all versions of Vista technically have this feature, only Business/Enterprise and Ultimate have it enabled, as Microsoft is initially pitching this as a business feature. Lower versions of Windows still have System Restore, but it does not keep track of all user files like it does in the higher versions. To keep these two features separate, Microsoft refers to the ability to restore user files via Volume Shadow Copy as Previous Versions, but since the snapshot process is controlled via System Restore, this makes for a poor distinction that will end up confusing at least a few people.


Indexed Search system got no description of that


And finally all the security fixes something like 250,000 buffer overflow problems. The UAC and all that fun IE7 protected mode and a few other things.


So it's not just a visual thing so expect it to take more resources like any other new OS. But come a year from now it'll be a must have just like the previous versions. Also the sounds of the new file system hitting SP1 could also be a big reason to migrate when it's released.

 

hey, try linux mate, i wonder if anyone here using linux?

 

Yeah, that's one big reason I'm don't have it; my computer can't handle it.

 

i don't care either xp or vista, but i voted for xp coz am using xp currently

 

Have you actually tried installing Vista? Or did you have to wait to order the CDs, because you didn't realise there were DVDs around these days? Sorry to bring you out of 9 years ago, 98 was great at the time, however now (no offence to it, as I still use it) it does in reality suck compared to many of the alternate operating systems availiable on today's market.

Vista is great, just because you don't use the gadgets (or know what they're actually called) doesn't mean that you have already got all the other features in XP. There are so many other things in Vista and if anyone bothered to try it instead of just sitting their complaining about it, then maybe some people would realise how good it was.

 

With the same hardware, Vista is running way better for me than XP was....

 

Before you buy Vista why don't you try Linux. There are so many flavors of them. If you don't want to install it into your hard drive why not try a Live CD. It runs from your cd and not your hard drive.

 

I live on laptops.. Vista eats their battery like light candies.
Poor on power saving ..

 

I have been using Vista since beta 2 release till now and as the only OS on my PC since January.
I never had problems with compability with other programs, the only problem was firewall, but it has already been resolved.
As for my hardware, it isn't top configuration to run Vista normally it's OK processor with 3GHz (32bit) and around 1-2gb RAM (2gb for slow and 1. - for fast module) and a simple video card (gf 5-6 series and radeon 9-series is ok).
I like Vista and never will come back on XP, maybe because I have been working with Vista for too long, from it's starting, maybe not.
Anyway, it's just my opinion.

P.S. Do you want it or not, only Vista supports 4+ GB RAM, so few years later everybody will use it

Thanks
Tim

 

I love Vista - it works great for me! I do hate all the Vista-bashers out there who are simply completely ignorant to the differences between XP and Vista, and the number of improvements. It seems to just be a bandwagon that many people jump on to make themselves fit in with the "cool" crowd. Except, all it does is really show how ignorant and uneducated a person is...

Not at all.

Not Vista's fault.

Use an alternative web broswer?

Same!

Have you even tried it?

Actually, use can still use 2003 if you want - there's nothing stopping you at all. And you can simply chance a setting in Office 2007 to make it use the old formats by default, or users of old Office verions could download the pack to allow them to read and edit the new file versions.

 

I just ordered a new Thinkpad laptop. It had the option of coming with XP Pro or Vista (same price). I opted for XP Pro. I'm sticking with a proven OS that I know is compatible with all my apps... AND I know will be fast as hell on 2 GB of RAM... =)

Sorry Vista... Maybe in a few years... or by then I'll be on Ubuntu or a Mac... =)

 

^ Thing there though is you have never even given it a try. I have an old Pentium 4 (socket 478) and 2GB DDR400 RAM and I feel that Vista is definitely faster than XP in every way. It's those people who seem to be shocked that they can run Vista on their Windows 98 hardware that scare everyone away.

This is called progress people. Not bloat. Progress. Every version of Windows, and nearly every OS for that matter, is going to be more resource intensive than the previous. It's just a fact of life, and the sooner people realize that and quit whining about progress, the better we will all be.

Let the flaming of cooldude begin!