Vista Opinions
- Thread starter linthat22
- Start date
RC1 works great for me. Installer is vastly improved. Easy install. Nvidia sata raid drivers also do not work so don't even try to install Vista off the DVD using the sata raid VC1 beta drivers.
The OS is much faster overall than Beta2. Ofcourse, Creative drivers suck and do not work. Disabled, Security Center, Windows Firewall and set the page file to 1024 to match my physical RAM and that seems to helped. Games work fine so far. I'll make it my primary OS for now.
I actually like the new layout, bells and whistles then again, I'm not resistant to change like most
The OS is much faster overall than Beta2. Ofcourse, Creative drivers suck and do not work. Disabled, Security Center, Windows Firewall and set the page file to 1024 to match my physical RAM and that seems to helped. Games work fine so far. I'll make it my primary OS for now.
I actually like the new layout, bells and whistles then again, I'm not resistant to change like most
I installed RC1 a few days ago, and it's much quicker and more stable than the beta2. So far no real issues except for the expected Creative issues .
My Audigy 2 installs, and is apperently working, but I get no sound. I was able to get it to work in beta2, but it worked so poorly, I took it out. After fighting the drivers for a while, I've just left it disabled for now. Thank god for crappy on board sound...
Othewise, so far so good.
. My Audigy 2 installs, and is apperently working, but I get no sound. I was able to get it to work in beta2, but it worked so poorly, I took it out. After fighting the drivers for a while, I've just left it disabled for now
. Thank god for crappy on board sound...Othewise, so far so good.
As anyone tried the 64bit version of RC1, Paul in that review says it's incompatability hell but also says its better than XP x64, yet I find XP x64 near perfect when it comes to compatibility. Its only the rare game and my tv card that doesnt work
when i was running it on RC2 for awhile before i managed to corrupt the drive with a windows XP CD it worked okay for a beta. I noticed no issues in booting or using the new interface except for an IE bug that used full CPU utilization if you scrolled up and down a webpage. All Source games worked really without issue, only problem was the ATI drivers acting strange about applying AA/AF.
It worked well enough that i'm going to be an earlier adopter though because other then small bugs that i'm sure will be worked out, it really was quite stable.
Right. I'm going to have to have a little rant here.
What the f*** is it with these bloody search features that decide to index your hard-drive while you're trying to do something else? Who designs these and thinks they're essential? What thought process have they gone through?
I mean for starters how often do you need to search your hard-drive unless you're a complete muppet with zero organisational skills? I've used Windows search maybe half-a-dozen times in the past five years, and that was to find some file which Windows had decided in it's wisdom to save in some arbitrary hidden directory fifteen jumps down from C:/ Or to locate the executable of some random extraneous piece of bloat which has decided it wants to hog all my memory or CPU without me asking it.
So by default I have to live with my hard-drive ticking away constantly in the background so I can save a few minutes once every three months? Bullshit!
Now, and this is worse, I'm seeing the same shit in Linux! A default install of SuSE gives me the bloody beagle thing which does exactly the same! WTF?!
Really these things just smack of a solution looking for a problem. If developers insist on wasting their time creating them then please MS, please SuSE turn them off by default.
*cough*
I feel better now, thanks for listening. I'll go get my medication...
It's not really about having mad org skills. I keep my data where it should be, but even I rely on search tools to get the most out of my PC. Even if I could find everything given enough time, my reasoning is that my time is valuable enough to want to find stuff instantly, so I make heavy use of Google Desktop and Effective File Search during my working day, to find data I know exists and even know where on my disks it should be, but for an instantaneous way to get to it.
And for me, where I have ~600GB of data, which equals a fearsome dir structure in places, even when everything's in the right place, I can't be arsed spending the time on the clicks to get to it. I've got better things to be doing with that time.
Just my tuppence since of course everyone uses a PC differently :smile2:
And for me, where I have ~600GB of data, which equals a fearsome dir structure in places, even when everything's in the right place, I can't be arsed spending the time on the clicks to get to it. I've got better things to be doing with that time.
Just my tuppence since of course everyone uses a PC differently :smile2:
Which is cool if that's how you comfortably use a PC. For me, my optimal workflow is one where I have access to program startup via a largely expanded Start Menu, and the vast majority of my data access via tools that provide access to it quickly or the programs I've launched, not clicking around on the desktop or in Explorer.
As a file management shell, Explorer on Vista (while better than Explorer on XP, pretty much because of the breadcrumb bar) still kind of sucks for me. Each to his own though!
DudeMiester
Regular
Just got my RC1 CPP email and burned my DVD, so I'll be installing tomorrow. Wish me luck!
You won't need luck, it'll install much faster than Beta 2 and run faster.
I know what you mean, I once installed some icon program to change the look of some drive icons and it changed the associations on me to default to search, very annoying.
MS isn't that bad, they just try to please everybody with one setup, what they should do is have a wizard that asks what kind of things you do on a computer rather than look in 20 different locations for settings and google each on to figure out what they actually do and why they are needed. And yes, everything should be off by default, lol, I agree.
It's much easier for the technically savvy to know what is running and how to turn things off than the technically incompetent to try and understand whether they want to turn on an option that they have no idea what it really does or how it will help them.
DudeMiester
Regular
Well, I installed RC1 and I can definitly say that I will be using this more then XP from here on in. Now I just need to make a backup of all my personal files and do some copying.
"Good bye Microsoft; Pete has now left the building!"
Has this finding been posted?
http://peterwright.blogspot.com/2006/09/good-bye-microsoft-pete-has-now-left.html
Seems like Vista is what most people is actually expecting, will it just be a OS around D3D10 for gamming and be a resource hog at multitasking with network/office applications? After seeing previews of vista a little around the web it just gives the feeling of another "MilleniumEdition" and you know the rest... I haven't tried Vista beta or RC1 so i can't comment exactly about what i think it will most likely be. But every review published doesn't exactly give you good reasons to really even think about buying/upgrading windows as with what happened with 98/2000 and XP.
Has this finding been posted?
http://peterwright.blogspot.com/2006/09/good-bye-microsoft-pete-has-now-left.html
Seems like Vista is what most people is actually expecting, will it just be a OS around D3D10 for gamming and be a resource hog at multitasking with network/office applications? After seeing previews of vista a little around the web it just gives the feeling of another "MilleniumEdition" and you know the rest... I haven't tried Vista beta or RC1 so i can't comment exactly about what i think it will most likely be. But every review published doesn't exactly give you good reasons to really even think about buying/upgrading windows as with what happened with 98/2000 and XP.
Well here's my experience with Vista x64 and x86:
-It takes about an hour to install, depending on your optical and hard drive speeds. It uses about 11 GB of hard drive space. For what? I dunno. Probably it's prettyness mechanisms.
-A fresh install boots slower than a bloated-full XP install. Scary to think what it will turn into once you get it all loaded up with apps. I see there's a new service start option called "delayed start". So, your computer will be booting even when you think it's done. Nice way to defeat boot time with psychology.
-It's pretty but that prettyness makes things kinda slow. i.e. resizing windows by stretching is pretty choppy. And it makes your video card heat up just browsing the web. Makes a laptop run even warmer, and people with temp/activity sensitive GPU fans will be unhappy.
-IE 7 is a blatant copy of Firefox/Opera.
-Signed Drivers only for x64 is a pain in the ass. I was thinking it was perhaps user security related, but I've read it's more to do with DRM.
-Security Center doesn't seem to be disable-able, meaning it constantly is down in the corner telling you to install antivirus/malware apps. And it of course tells you about MS's solutions.
-Start Menu is busier and more confusingly "people oriented" than ever.
The most annoying part for me, other than the wasted processing power and ridiculous hard drive space usage, is that it seems like accomplishing tasks in Vista takes 3 more clicks than XP. Productivity and expedience have gone down the tubes for prettyness and "innovative" features.
Is there a way to bypass the stupid confirmation windows for running seemingly every system app?
I am not impressed with Vista much at all. It's all looks. Superficial nonsense.
-It takes about an hour to install, depending on your optical and hard drive speeds. It uses about 11 GB of hard drive space. For what? I dunno. Probably it's prettyness mechanisms.
-A fresh install boots slower than a bloated-full XP install. Scary to think what it will turn into once you get it all loaded up with apps. I see there's a new service start option called "delayed start". So, your computer will be booting even when you think it's done. Nice way to defeat boot time with psychology.
-It's pretty but that prettyness makes things kinda slow. i.e. resizing windows by stretching is pretty choppy. And it makes your video card heat up just browsing the web. Makes a laptop run even warmer, and people with temp/activity sensitive GPU fans will be unhappy.
-IE 7 is a blatant copy of Firefox/Opera.
-Signed Drivers only for x64 is a pain in the ass. I was thinking it was perhaps user security related, but I've read it's more to do with DRM.
-Security Center doesn't seem to be disable-able, meaning it constantly is down in the corner telling you to install antivirus/malware apps. And it of course tells you about MS's solutions.
-Start Menu is busier and more confusingly "people oriented" than ever.
The most annoying part for me, other than the wasted processing power and ridiculous hard drive space usage, is that it seems like accomplishing tasks in Vista takes 3 more clicks than XP. Productivity and expedience have gone down the tubes for prettyness and "innovative" features.
Is there a way to bypass the stupid confirmation windows for running seemingly every system app?
I am not impressed with Vista much at all. It's all looks. Superficial nonsense.
Finding? The guy left the company, do you expect him to leave with praises? Hell no. I get nothing but the pissed of whiny dude who cant get a grip with life. Everyones know everything he just said about MS for ages, yet he built them up to be some fairy tale great company? Either he's a huge idiot or has an agenda.
I'm really liking the new search capabilities. I find myself using search more than digging for files manually now.
Also, the new start button setup is cool once you get used to it. Hit the "window" key on the k/b and start typing the name of the app. Good stuff!
IE7 works fine but then again I've been using IE7 on XP for a while now so no big change there for me.
The UAC is not as intrusive, I even left it on.
The new disk managment is nice as is the fully customizable firewall.
It's headed in the right direction for sure.
Also, the new start button setup is cool once you get used to it. Hit the "window" key on the k/b and start typing the name of the app. Good stuff!
IE7 works fine but then again I've been using IE7 on XP for a while now so no big change there for me.
The UAC is not as intrusive, I even left it on.
The new disk managment is nice as is the fully customizable firewall.
It's headed in the right direction for sure.
"Eh, I want to do something, like write an e-mail or such to someone, you know, the one from that other company that says "yeah, really?" a lot, and it should be like, I dunno, that e-mail to Chris some time ago, about, eh, it mentioned green a lot, I think."
UI for Windows 2050 in action.
UI for Windows 2050 in action.
Erm I installed it on a 13GB partition and have 5GB free and 2.3GB is taken up by the hibernation file and the pagefile.Well here's my experience with Vista x64 and x86:
-It takes about an hour to install, depending on your optical and hard drive speeds. It uses about 11 GB of hard drive space. For what? I dunno. Probably it's prettyness mechanisms.
-A fresh install boots slower than a bloated-full XP install. Scary to think what it will turn into once you get it all loaded up with apps. I see there's a new service start option called "delayed start". So, your computer will be booting even when you think it's done. Nice way to defeat boot time with psychology.
-It's pretty but that prettyness makes things kinda slow. i.e. resizing windows by stretching is pretty choppy. And it makes your video card heat up just browsing the web. Makes a laptop run even warmer, and people with temp/activity sensitive GPU fans will be unhappy.
-IE 7 is a blatant copy of Firefox/Opera.
-Signed Drivers only for x64 is a pain in the ass. I was thinking it was perhaps user security related, but I've read it's more to do with DRM.
-Security Center doesn't seem to be disable-able, meaning it constantly is down in the corner telling you to install antivirus/malware apps. And it of course tells you about MS's solutions.
-Start Menu is busier and more confusingly "people oriented" than ever.
The most annoying part for me, other than the wasted processing power and ridiculous hard drive space usage, is that it seems like accomplishing tasks in Vista takes 3 more clicks than XP. Productivity and expedience have gone down the tubes for prettyness and "innovative" features.
Is there a way to bypass the stupid confirmation windows for running seemingly every system app?
I am not impressed with Vista much at all. It's all looks. Superficial nonsense.
It actually said it only needed like 7GB free to install.
It also only took 20 minutes to install on my 3200+ A64.
The first boot was slow but after that it's on par with XP, even logging in is near instant.
UAC is less annoying then previously but it's easily disabled.
Also for some reason all the files from before the vista install didn't have rights so I had to turn off UAC and make em mine, that is my only real complaint.
I won't waste any more time on your complaints because frankly they're do to your apparent lack of experience with even XP, ill do one... I disabled the security center warnings within 10 seconds of it popping up...
I have only used beta 2 before this so it's not like I knew where everything was..
RC1 vista is very very good for what it is (the first major windows version since like windows 2000), the new UI is ok but flip3d is retarded, expose` is far superior, it's just a fancy version of the new alt tab, only diff is the widows are bigger and in real time.
Either fully ripoff expose` or don't do it at all, it's a halfass attempt atm.
