windows vista is powerful or not

I have one of the higher spec home PCs money can buy, and generally Vista runs ok but honestly i cant stand it. When i first installed it in Nov 06 i thought the more i used it, it will grow on me.

But alas the opposite was true, the more i use it the more i hated it. Ive got a triple boot also with XP and Ubuntu, so Vista is rotting on its partition - RIP Vista for me.

 

I have a 1.6GHz dual-core processor with 1GB of RAM. That's nowhere near high end yet Vista functions properly on my computer. Better than XP did.

 

I've been running Vista on a high-end laptop since it went into RTM status and I love it. It's overall better than XP was for me.

 

There we go, a positive comment. What are your laptop's specs?

 

and actually, alot of apps are not compatible with vista.
i just bought a home premium, run it like a week, then install back XP. lol
lots of driver is not working on vista, not even new hardware, like logitech G11 mouse.

i hate em. besides, you can purchase personal firewall like zonealarm to cover up your computer, they work almost the same like vista.

cheers!

 

I thought vista would be slower than XP. I installed it on a Dell c800 laptop with 384 ram, and it was much faster than Fedora and faster than XP. I couldnt believe it, although it was a beta so I had to take it off and put XP back on.

 

I bought this computer with Vista so I can't comment on hardware compatibility issues but my video card had a few problems, even though it was bundled with the operating system, but after doing some intense google-ing (thanks, Google) I found a solution. One driver actually responded well in Vista.

Other than that, I haven't saw a whole lot of application problems. I can run different versions of WordPerfect Office and several other problems I use. One thing that annoys me is ZoneAlarm is not yet compatible, but Check Point (people that make it) are working on that.

It's not Microsoft's fault that developers haven't released Vista-compatible editions of software. Don't call me a fanboy either, I just respect Vista.

 

Well, it's not that high-end anymore.

Intel Core Duo T2500. 2GB (2x1GB) DDR2 667 SDRAM. 15.4" WSXGA+ (1680 x 1050) TFT LCD. ATI Radeon X1600 512MB. 120GB Hard Drive.

 

I can say that Vista is just XP with a brand new look - underneath it is just the same old operating system!

Also, according to some reviews, the content of main memory is constantly changing which means the same pages of memory are constantly being reloaded with the same data. Another problem occurs when repeated loads into system memory occur. The hard drive is constantly spinning and seeking data. More memory can help though, but for an additional cost.

 

Its descent enough..

Microsoft had to do it after the stupid things they had done in XP

 

learn how to spell, then learn what differs in between both and come back. Most of the replies from people here have shown nothing except the fact that they know nothing about either OS.

 

It doesn't feel like the same old operating system to me. UAC was too annoying and I had to disable it. I don't have little kids playing with my PC so I don't need/want it. A lot of the organizational features of the Explorer didn't exist in XP, and little things like the better file renaming function (I think this existed on Mac OS X first) help out too.

From which reviews did you get the "constant memory changing" or hard drive seeking information? My system does neither of those. I have 2 GB of RAM, but I see no reason why it'd keep reloading data with less. At one point my hard drive did have constant activity (and I mean non-stop - the LED didn't even flicker), but I found out it was Google Desktop so I uninstalled that. Be sure to disable indexing too... I thought I'd give a fully-indexed system a try in Vista, but my searches didn't get much faster.

What I'm wondering is why Microsoft took out things like the ability to change file icons. Now my icons are stuck with the default icons of the default programs. I think I've found a third-party program that can change this, but I'm trying not to unnecessarily run anything in the background.

Something strange is that I've experienced more blue screens in two months with Vista than I have in two years with XP. I should note that I'm using Vista Business x64 and that I used XP Professional x64 Edition. Most of the time I traced the blue screens to Google Desktop or O&O Defrag, so I don't think I can blame Windows that much (but they should implement some sort of ). I really hope the 32-bit/single-core spiral will end soon. We need to move on!

I also want to say that it's not just a copy of Mac OS X. Some of the features were conceptualized or already finished before Vista was publicly released (like in the alphas and betas). To be honest, I don't really like how they're "baby-izing" the GUI. I don't know how else to describe it, but people who know how to use Windows PCs well don't deserve that. I would use Linux, but then I can't play all my games. Oh, I have a Mac OS X system too, but I it feels too simple. I also can't disable "themes" in Mac OS X... I prefer the Windows Classic style because it seems more organized while using less system resources, or maybe I'm just too used to it. I have to say, though, Vista does a great job making it look absolutely horrible. I may have to revert back to Aero soon.

Sorry for posting such a long piece of text. I'm half-awake right now and am not so aware of what's going on. These are just my thoughts pouring out.

 

I get more BSODs too, but nothing serious.

 

I have never gotten a BSOD from Vista, and I've been running it since launch. I definitely understand where you're coming from chewbacca, as far as classic is concerned. It looks horrible in Vista, and in fact they were initially going to do away with classic altogether. The thing is that when you're running classic or vista basic, you're using your CPU to render the screen. The whole advantage of Aero is that it use your video card to process the screen, leaving the CPU to do what it does best. A good experiment is to open up task manager in basic or classic, and then move a window around rapidly and chaotically while watching the task manager. Now do the same in Aero. Notice the difference? Here's my peak CPU usage doing that:
- Classic: Core1: 83% / Core2: 86%
- Aero: Core1: 56% / Core2: 44%

 

I've never experienced that before. I guess you learn something new every day.

I'm surprised my video card can even handle Aero. ^_^ It's some sort of Intel Mobile Chipset; I know nothing about video cards.

 

Well, I have a pretty dang nice video card at this point (ATI Radeon X1900GT) but I just got that around two weeks ago. Before that I was using integrated graphics (GeForce 6100) which is pretty low end. The integrated graphics ran Aero perfectly. All you need for Aero is a Direct X 9 capable GPU. Pretty much any DX9 GPU will run Aero smoothly, and thus improve your overall system performance.

 

Thanks, jquindlen, I didn't know Classic could actually use more CPU power than Aero. I don't have exact stats, but what you said is true; using Classic, my Athlon 64 X2 4400+ loads jump up about 30-40%, while on Aero, they go up by only 20-25% each. I also noticed a much bigger slowdown when Alt-Tab'ing from games under Aero. The resolution I use is 1680x1050 on the right + 1280x1024 on the left. I have a GeForce 7800 GT.

What's your processor, by the way?

 

That would make sense. I believe Vista uses Direct 3D to render the screen, so that might hit games a bit, especially when using ALT-TAB. I wonder if switching to Basic or Classic would improve game performance, since it would free up a little bit of your VRAM and GPU? Hmm. Worth a shot. Even 1 more FPS in Oblivion would make me feel a bit better.

I'm running an Opteron 165, which is comparable to Athlon 64 X2 3800+ except the 165 runs at 1.8GHz (X2 3800+ runs @ 2.0) however I have 2MB L2 cache (X2 3800+ only has 1MB) Performance wise, they benchmark about the same. The 165 can overclock like mad though. I've had this stable at 2.8GHz on stock everything. My only problem is the last 1GB stick of RAM I got doesn't like me overclocking at all or else I get memory errors. [/rant]

 

Yeah, I've noticed that when in games, Vista changes the "background" windows to Basic. If I Alt+Tab or accidentally press the Windows Start key, it re-renders them to Aero Glass. Using Classic, it doesn't do anything with the windows when entering or exiting games.

I was going to get an Opteron for its price, but I found the 4400+ on sale (well, it was cheap way back then) so I got it instead. It also has the 2 MB of L2 cache rather than most of the others' 1 MB. I've got third-party coolers for the CPU and video card, and they both overclock very well. It seems like memory is the hardest to overclock - I tried lowering the timings on my memory too, but that also only caused errors.

Oh, another thing concerning BSoDs: They weren't caused by Windows directly. If I had never installed Google Desktop or O&O Defrag, I don't think I would've gotten any either. Vista has been the most stable for me out of all Windows (I don't know if the 32-bit edition would be even better), but I think I'm going back down to XP x86 just for the compatibility with most games and applications until just about everything supports Vista.

 

I never got bsod on vista. The only time I ever see bsod is when a buggy driver gets installed, usually something like a scanner, especially one of those 3 in 1 or 4 in 1 printer scanner deals, the drivers are awful. Sometimes you can go to the manufactures site and download the newest driver.

That's why I highly recommend when you get a new computer you wipe it out and do a nice clean install. Sometimes that just puts back on the same garbage that comes with a lot of computers these days, but that is also why I recommend buying vista and just building a nice computer. Then you can install a clean copy and run the machine for a day or two. Just with simple tasks, surfing, email. Then load programs only as you need them and you can usually catch the software or driver causing the problem.

I think the biggest mistake I see people make is they get a new computer and they just install every program they have and don't even reboot after an install and the machine starts crashing.

of course I guess just as common for bsod is bad memory, but thats easy enough to test, or an improperly setup paging file of course.

In fact, I can say without a doubt that I have never had a xp or vista install that I could not track the bsod to one of the above. XP was solid as a rock, windows server 2003 was more solid, and I am hoping vista continues to be as solid. I got a few copies on the way for testing boxes, I can't wait