Vista SP1 officially released

Now that I'm buying a new processor, I'm contemplating purchasing Vista to utilize the 64 bit chip. I've been reading up on it, a lot, and I see nothing but complaints regarding software incompatibility. Now I have no idea how old these reviews are, or whether or not most of these issues have been addressed. But with the addition of the first SP, I'm praying like hell they have been. The last thing I want is to get the software only to find out my video card or something obscure isn't supported, preventing me from my daily activities.
 
Try right-clicking on a shortcut in XP which points to an invalid (deleted or moved) target and see how long it takes for the context menu to come up.
 
Davros said:
because they are running it on a standard xp era pc (2-3ghz single core cpu, 512mb ram) and you are not


eg:
xp:
click on desktop shortcut press delete instantly a msgbox pops up "do you want to send this file to the recycle bin" ok-cancel press ok and its deleted

vista:
click on desktop shortcut press delete instantly a msgbox pops up "calculating time required to complete operation" that takes 10-15 seconds then you finally get the "do you want to send this file to the recycle bin" msgbox

why does it take vista 15 seconds to calculate it will take less than 1/100 sec to delete a shortcut
Click to expand...

Exactly correct! :D

Off the Topic:
I have Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 running @ 333x9 = 3000MHz
4GB Memory DDR2-800MHz 4-4-4-12
Asus P35 motherboard
Windows Ultimate 64bit.

And Vista is slower then XP :(
 
Ink said:
Now that I'm buying a new processor, I'm contemplating purchasing Vista to utilize the 64 bit chip. I've been reading up on it, a lot, and I see nothing but complaints regarding software incompatibility. Now I have no idea how old these reviews are, or whether or not most of these issues have been addressed. But with the addition of the first SP, I'm praying like hell they have been. The last thing I want is to get the software only to find out my video card or something obscure isn't supported, preventing me from my daily activities.
Click to expand...

I get really frustrated when I read things like this (not directed at you).

There's a lot of fud about Vista all over the net, sometimes I try to dispell it (as do others) but there's only so much you can do, especially with sites like the Inquirer coming out with what border on bald faced lies as they do.

Vista being slow/buggy/unstable/lacking compatability is a complete self perpetuating myth. At least in my expereince anyway. I picked it up in week 1 of retail release and even at the very beginning I hit virtually no issues and the ones I did hit were minor annoyances at best. Fast forward to today and I have absolutely zero issues with any item of software or hardware. The OS looks nicer, runs at least as fast and has lots of "nice" "little" features that just weren't present in XP.

My advice would be to ignore the negative feedback and make the move with an open mind. Obviously if you go in looking for trouble with the attitude that you want XP to be better then you'll probably be able to find some issues (although personally I think you would be hard pressed), but if your mins open I expect you'll find it a refreshing upgrade from XP. It won't change your world but its definatly a step up IMO.

I'll caveat all that by saying that i'm using Vista 32bit with a reasonably powerful system. And obviously the fact that I have never come across an incompatability problem doesn't mean they don't exist.
 
pjbliverpool said:
Vista being slow/buggy/unstable/lacking compatability is a complete self perpetuating myth. At least in my expereince anyway. I picked it up in week 1 of retail release and even at the very beginning I hit virtually no issues and the ones I did hit were minor annoyances at best.
Click to expand...

In my experience Vista is neither buggy nor unstable and I haven't come across any compatibility problems (even with the 64 bit version) though I am running on pretty recent/high hardware.

As for the (lack of) speed. It's the truth. I'm running Vista 64 on a C2D 2.2 (4mb cache) with 3gb DDR2 667 ram + 8600GS and everything is slower than on my XP system with a C2D 2.4 (4 mb cache) with 2gb DDR2 667 ram + X850XT PE AGP. Sometimes considerably slower.

Btw, for reference, when I say slower I don't mean stuff takes minutes versus seconds to accomplish but it's noticeable and measurable. Boot times in particular are three times as long, shutting down Windows takes forever. If you installed any Windows updates then it takes forever + 2 weeks. Browsing through Explorer also has a certain latency to it. And of course, installing, patching and uninstalling games take measurably longer. Because of Vista caching everything simply launching a game also takes quite a bit longer.

My advice would be to ignore the negative feedback and make the move with an open mind. Obviously if you go in looking for trouble with the attitude that you want XP to be better then you'll probably be able to find some issues (although personally I think you would be hard pressed), but if your mins open I expect you'll find it a refreshing upgrade from XP. It won't change your world but its definatly a step up IMO.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you here that Vista does have some nice new features there's one thing most people will find it an issue without any trouble at all is the UAC. I really tried to play along but when I had to confirm deleting something from my desktop, occasionally confirming twice when running a shortcut from the start menu, etc. I ended up disabling it after a couple of days. I'm guessing that once you install everything you want and configure your machine to your liking you'll encounter UAC less but I don't know if I'll go back.
 
pjbliverpool said:
I get really frustrated when I read things like this (not directed at you).

There's a lot of fud about Vista all over the net, sometimes I try to dispell it (as do others) but there's only so much you can do, especially with sites like the Inquirer coming out with what border on bald faced lies as they do.

Vista being slow/buggy/unstable/lacking compatability is a complete self perpetuating myth. At least in my expereince anyway. I picked it up in week 1 of retail release and even at the very beginning I hit virtually no issues and the ones I did hit were minor annoyances at best. Fast forward to today and I have absolutely zero issues with any item of software or hardware. The OS looks nicer, runs at least as fast and has lots of "nice" "little" features that just weren't present in XP.

My advice would be to ignore the negative feedback and make the move with an open mind. Obviously if you go in looking for trouble with the attitude that you want XP to be better then you'll probably be able to find some issues (although personally I think you would be hard pressed), but if your mins open I expect you'll find it a refreshing upgrade from XP. It won't change your world but its definatly a step up IMO.

I'll caveat all that by saying that i'm using Vista 32bit with a reasonably powerful system. And obviously the fact that I have never come across an incompatability problem doesn't mean they don't exist.
Click to expand...

For some users vista runs great for others is NOT.

I currently running XP with no problem; and part of the reason I don't run vista anymore is every time I overclock my Q6600 from default clock speed of 266x9 to 333x9 - then Vista suddenly locks up; NOT at boot up welcome screen but at task-manager screen trying to open some kind program or command function.

With windows XP NO issues when overcloking.
 
pjbliverpool said:
I get really frustrated when I read things like this (not directed at you).

There's a lot of fud about Vista all over the net, sometimes I try to dispell it (as do others) but there's only so much you can do, especially with sites like the Inquirer coming out with what border on bald faced lies as they do.

Vista being slow/buggy/unstable/lacking compatability is a complete self perpetuating myth. At least in my expereince anyway. I picked it up in week 1 of retail release and even at the very beginning I hit virtually no issues and the ones I did hit were minor annoyances at best. Fast forward to today and I have absolutely zero issues with any item of software or hardware. The OS looks nicer, runs at least as fast and has lots of "nice" "little" features that just weren't present in XP.

My advice would be to ignore the negative feedback and make the move with an open mind. Obviously if you go in looking for trouble with the attitude that you want XP to be better then you'll probably be able to find some issues (although personally I think you would be hard pressed), but if your mins open I expect you'll find it a refreshing upgrade from XP. It won't change your world but its definatly a step up IMO.

I'll caveat all that by saying that i'm using Vista 32bit with a reasonably powerful system. And obviously the fact that I have never come across an incompatability problem doesn't mean they don't exist.
Click to expand...


Having a 64 bit system is where most of the complaints originate. And to some degree, its understandable. From what I've read, there's very little software out there that's even intended for 64 bits, and finding a lot of drivers that are compatible seems like it may be a nightmare. The sole reason I want Vista is so that I can use my Q6600 to it's full potential, and would rather not be sidelined by a plethora of compatibility issues. Shtal seems to have a similar configuration to my system, the only difference is I won't be OC'ing my Q6600. So, with that in mind am I an ideal candidate for Vista? Have a lot of these driver issues been resolved since the induction of Vista?
 
Ink said:
Having a 64 bit system is where most of the complaints originate. And to some degree, its understandable. From what I've read, there's very little software out there that's even intended for 64 bits, and finding a lot of drivers that are compatible seems like it may be a nightmare. The sole reason I want Vista is so that I can use my Q6600 to it's full potential, and would rather not be sidelined by a plethora of compatibility issues. Shtal seems to have a similar configuration to my system, the only difference is I won't be OC'ing my Q6600. So, with that in mind am I an ideal candidate for Vista? Have a lot of these driver issues been resolved since the induction of Vista?
Click to expand...

Can't help you there i'm afraid. The 64bit version is out of my experience. Given my experience with 32bit though i'm definatly planning to go 64bit for my next upgrade. I.e. no issues with 32bit and I also fancy using my system to its full potential.
 
lol at people saying vista is slow.. if you have a shit pc.
Look at ANY benchmarks on the web, or do some yourself, Vista is SLOWER than xp in just about any benchmark. The only area vista is across the board faster is loading times, thanks to superfetch.
'Tis no myth, silly fanboys.
I do run vista, make no mistake, but it is slower at most things, but not a noticeable amount.
 
radeonic2 said:
lol at people saying vista is slow.. if you have a shit pc.
Look at ANY benchmarks on the web, or do some yourself, Vista is SLOWER than xp in just about any benchmark. The only area vista is across the board faster is loading times, thanks to superfetch.
Click to expand...

I would be interested in seeing those benchmarks.

I remember seeing some old gaming benchmarks with early drivers but nothing recent and definatly nothing with SP1.
 
radeonic2 said:
lol at people saying vista is slow.. if you have a shit pc.
Look at ANY benchmarks on the web, or do some yourself, Vista is SLOWER than xp in just about any benchmark. The only area vista is across the board faster is loading times, thanks to superfetch.
'Tis no myth, silly fanboys.
I do run vista, make no mistake, but it is slower at most things, but not a noticeable amount.
Click to expand...
Well, benchmarks don't tell the whole story. Vista is considerably to vastly faster in situations with lots of multitasking (i.e. several applications producing considerable cpu and/or disk load) and in low memory situations. I would even say it's ridiculously faster in the latter case.
 
pjbliverpool said:
I would be interested in seeing those benchmarks.

I remember seeing some old gaming benchmarks with early drivers but nothing recent and definatly nothing with SP1.
Click to expand...
I never said anything about games, go ahead and look for your self, the "big" sites have all run benchmarkis on vista comparing it to xp, even in multi tasking as discussed below..

N00b said:
Well, benchmarks don't tell the whole story. Vista is considerably to vastly faster in situations with lots of multitasking (i.e. several applications producing considerable cpu and/or disk load) and in low memory situations. I would even say it's ridiculously faster in the latter case.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but single application performance is is slower, I have see no benchmark (even multi task benchmarks such that techreport does) that shows vista prevailing over xp.
Ink said:
Any 64 bit users? What's your opinion?
Click to expand...

I used vista 64 bit with sp1 for a bit, didnt run any 64 bit software on it but it was quite snappy, photoshop cs3 loaded realllly fast, faster than my 32 bit sp1 install, on the same hdd.
 
Ink said:
Any 64 bit users? What's your opinion?
Click to expand...
We have three laptops here in our office running 64bit Vista. No problems so far. Might even run a bit faster than 32 bit Vista. But that's a subjective observation. The laptops run development stuff mostly (Visual Studio, SQL Server, VMWare, Office), but my colleague has tried some current-gen games (i.e. C&C3) and had no problems. Don't know about framerates, tough.
 
radeonic2 said:
That may be true, but in single application performance it is slower, I have see no benchmark (even multi task benchmarks such that techreport does) that shows vista prevailing over xp.
Click to expand...
I have been using Vista since december on my development laptop and really wouldn't want to miss it. For my workload it's definitely snappier and more responsive. The only part that sometimes feels slower is the explorer in certain situations. I had some issues here and there, but most were solved by hotfixes. All the remaining problems I have had are gone since SP1.
 
N00b said:
I have been using Vista since december on my development laptop and really wouldn't want to miss it. For my workload it's definitely snappier and more responsive. The only part that sometimes feels slower is the explorer in certain situations. I had some issues here and there, but most were solved by hotfixes. All the remaining problems I have had are gone since SP1.
Click to expand...
Snappier and more reponsive is not objective. I'd like to see concrete evidence.. i.e stop watch or something like that.
Btw while hybrid sleep is awesome, when the power goes out and it is forced to use the hybernation file it is slow as balls to get to a state where I can actually use it, the resume time isn't that bad but it takes several minutes for windows to get to where it's responsive, obviously much slower than a normal boot. Not sure if my case is isolated but it's happened several times my mobo is flakey at sometimes). with the same slow resume time, even with no windows open.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Unknown Soldier
Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5
Replies
1
Views
2K
Davros
D
Unknown Soldier
Windows Security Updates Summary for February 2005
Replies
1
Views
3K
Unknown Soldier
Unknown Soldier
Back
Top