Anyone running Windows Vista?

[Desdinova]

Getting myself a new box, and it's coming pre-installed with Windows Vista. Did some searching on the net, and apparently it's a hunk of 5hit. Knowing me, I'll probably end up wiping the hard drive and installing Linux. Hell, maybe I'll just downgrade to OS/2 Warp

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I like it. It's esthetically pleasing but it is what it is, eye candy.

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

Vista uses 630-700mb of ram when running fresh. Nothing installed. I tried it on a system with 1.0 GB of ram. Slow as hell to boot too.

My XP install right now uses 240mb ram and I have a bunch of stuff open. 5-6 applications. Speed? Fast for XP, and REALLY fast compared to Vista.

Plus I have a little addon in XP called TopDesk 1.4.2 That does the cool 3D window effects like vista.

Also. You can download Vista Transformation Pack by a guy named Windows X to make it look the same as vista. Evn transparent windows and stuff (you gotta look through the FAQ to enable this though).

Here is the link: http://www.windowsxlive.net/?page_id=15

Complete with mouse cursors, icons, sounds, boot screen... EVERYTHING.

 

[Desdinova]

You can download Vista Transformation Pack by a guy named Windows X to make it look the same as vista.

Haha, reminds me of that piece of software you could download to make your Win3.11 look like Win95. It worked pretty good too!

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

You just gave yourself away, troll.

Just like both of you are trolls.

You idiot! Desdinova is a Moderator!
He's like the anti-troll. He's on the way, way far right of the spectrum.

You've called everyone here a troll.
Every thread I read you posted in, you've called someone a troll.

Seriously, troll. You don't have to try so hard.



On a side note: Funy how DJDoomage is like DJDamage.

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

Haha, reminds me of that piece of software you could download to make your Win3.11 look like Win95. It worked pretty good too!

Give the vista transformation pack a try if you want XP to be like vista.

If you just want a better looking Windows XP or Windows 2003, use XPize. Comes with better icons that replace near everything in your system, and a cool theme and bootscreens. It gives XP a facelift.

XPize: http://xpize.thunderhoster.com/

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

Where did DJDoomage go?

 

[Desdinova]

I couldn't give a damn about how nice the OS looks, all I care is that it works. Currently the only piece of Microsoft software i use is the OS. I gave up on IE and began using Opera. I use NSnotify for email, I use Winamp to play my music, and I use 602 suite for all my "Microsoft Office" needs although it's pretty out of date now (time to switch to Openoffice). From what I gather, moving over to Linux will probably be easier than using Vista. I'll likely go dual boot with XP.

Where did DJDoomage go?

I accidently deleted his post

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

Linux eh? Try sabayon Linux.

Its the vista of linux. And I mean that in a "it uses your vieocard to make everything pretty" kind of way. Its fast and it also has a livecd so you can try it out.

Looks awesome, and stable.

http://www.sabayonlinux.org/

 

[Abbott]

I don't yet. But, I will be buying me a copy of Vista Business sometime this year.

Why?

Because it's the latest version. I know, it sounds like a bad reason. Regardless, it will become a defacto requirement. When XP came out in 2001, it started out as optional, but now it's effectively required. Vista may not be necessary today, but it will be.

Call_Me_Daddy: Buy more RAM. If your computer is like most, it probably uses the cheap Non-ECC Unbuffered stuff, so you don't have a lot of excuse.

The problem you mention isn't new. It's been that way for years. In the mid-90s, a PC with 64MB RAM would've been good enough. Not anymore. Software only gets more and more bloated as time goes on. WordPerfect 5.1 could do anything I need a word processor to do, and then some. WordPerfect 12 isn't vastly different, yet it takes up a lot more space and needs a beefier PC.


I know what I say sounds crappy, but it's true and it affects all of us. In 1998, I assembled a PC at a cost of $1,500. Now, it's barely usable for certain purposes, and unsuitable for daily use despite it now having a doubly fast CPU and four times the RAM it originally came with. My current PC, assembled at a cost of $1,750 in 2004, probably only has a year or so of life until it's unbearably lacking, short of some serious upgrades.

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

Call_Me_Daddy: Buy more RAM. If your computer is like most, it probably uses the cheap Non-ECC Unbuffered stuff, so you don't have a lot of excuse.

The problem you mention isn't new. It's been that way for years. In the mid-90s, a PC with 64MB RAM would've been good enough. Not anymore. Software only gets more and more bloated as time goes on. WordPerfect 5.1 could do anything I need a word processor to do, and then some. WordPerfect 12 isn't vastly different, yet it takes up a lot more space and needs a beefier PC.

Thanks but no thanks. Why would I buy $300-500 worth of ram to use a word processor? A WORD PROCESSOR. Its lightly more complex than a caluclator.

I know what I say sounds crappy, but it's true and it affects all of us. In 1998, I assembled a PC at a cost of $1,500. Now, it's barely usable for certain purposes, and unsuitable for daily use despite it now having a doubly fast CPU and four times the RAM it originally came with. My current PC, assembled at a cost of $1,750 in 2004, probably only has a year or so of life until it's unbearably lacking, short of some serious upgrades.

Dude. I'm using a PC from 1999-2000 (XP 1800+ 512MB Ram, and etc.). Its unbelievably fast for day-to-day work. Boots in about 15-20 seconds and it runs Windows 2003.

The secret? Get rid of the bloat. I don't have hundreds of useless startup entries like "printer software update checker", "windows sofware update checker" "useless app that doesn't do anything important but takes space regardless".

All you need to do is reinstall windows fresh. And then remove useless startup entries that use memory and processor after you put on your Word 2003, printer.. and etc. You can make your 2004 computer be on par with something made last year. You just have to disable what slows it down.

Or hell, just buy a new one. If you don't how are the manufacturers going to make money?

Its like leasing a car every few years because "it has problems". You're too lazy to do some maintenance on it, so you just buy a new one. Little do you know that all you neede was to change the oil and reinflate the tires.


But oh well. Your loss. Support the hardware companies and their huge R&D projects!

Oh and:

In the mid-90s, a PC with 64MB RAM would've been good enough. Not anymore.

That's what you think. I have a laptop (64mb ram, pentium 2... 300mhz) running XP Pro. I can use the Internet, Winamp, Office2003 and it runs pretty okay. Not a speed demon but apps load in about 4-5 seconds. So its pretty respectable.

You just have to know how to tweak it a little. It took me under 20min to get it working good.

 

[bigjohnson]

I work in software development and a lot of guys have been using the various beta and RC releases for over a year, back when it was still "Longhorn". Good stuff, not so slow as people have you think.

Just have to not have crap hardware, and memory is cheap. If you really want to save memory you can get a free version of DOS.

 

[grinder]

Vista is inevitable, we may as well suck it up. I have flip-flopped from every Linux distribution that exists and I now dual boot Fedora and XP on most of my machines. Although I’m a Linux snob, there are still things I have to use Windohs for.

If your getting a new one the machine will handle Vista fine. ATI and NVidia do not have their sh*t together yet on drivers, unfortunately, so some high-end games are waiting. They will be done soon.

Overall, the surveys I see are about like XP was when it first hit.

Also, some older devices don’t have drivers yet, and some may never get them.

SP1 for it will probably be out before Xmas, that’s when most will jump on it.

I would never put it on a machine older than a year.

 

[bigjohnson]

I'd never upgrade from XP to Vista, but when it comes installed I wouldn't roll back to XP either; and dual booting ot having a Linux box is always good.

 

[diablo]

Thanks to LSU, I've upgraded from XP to Vista Ultimate for free (and yes, I can also upgrade as many machines as I want to Vista Enterprise). I have a relatively new computer with a gig of RAM so things haven't been running as slowly as if I only had 512 (or worse yet, 256). I've found that the new tabbing system is cool, but it isn't very practical. I still alt-tab to get to different windows instead of 'windows-tab' which brings up the different screens. If I was asked if I would pay for Vista, absolutely not. At least, not for another year until the bugs were worked out. If Vista was (is) given to me free, sure, why not?

 

[djbr]

Because it's the latest version. I know, it sounds like a bad reason. Regardless, it will become a defacto requirement. When XP came out in 2001, it started out as optional, but now it's effectively required. Vista may not be necessary today, but it will be.

I still stay outta Vista until the bitter end. The one who goes first always get fvcked. And pay more.

The problem you mention isn't new. It's been that way for years. In the mid-90s, a PC with 64MB RAM would've been good enough. Not anymore. Software only gets more and more bloated as time goes on. WordPerfect 5.1 could do anything I need a word processor to do, and then some. WordPerfect 12 isn't vastly different, yet it takes up a lot more space and needs a beefier PC.

Although my PC is cr@p (Duron 1600MHz), it has 1GB of RAM, making it able to run everything I need plus more.

RAM is the best upgrade there is.

I know what I say sounds crappy, but it's true and it affects all of us. In 1998, I assembled a PC at a cost of $1,500. Now, it's barely usable for certain purposes, and unsuitable for daily use despite it now having a doubly fast CPU and four times the RAM it originally came with. My current PC, assembled at a cost of $1,750 in 2004, probably only has a year or so of life until it's unbearably lacking, short of some serious upgrades.

I am the master of making old PCs useful. But hey, computers here are kinda expensive so that ability has some meaning

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

I am the master of making old PCs useful. But hey, computers here are kinda expensive so that ability has some meaning

Awesome. In that case... how do you unlock a Palomino Core? (1900+)

I'd like to get a little more life out of this CPU I'm using... but so far I haven't found a practical method.

 

[djbr]

Dude. I'm using a PC from 1999-2000 (XP 1800+ 512MB Ram, and etc.). Its unbelievably fast for day-to-day work. Boots in about 15-20 seconds and it runs Windows 2003.

The secret? Get rid of the bloat. I don't have hundreds of useless startup entries like "printer software update checker", "windows sofware update checker" "useless app that doesn't do anything important but takes space regardless".

That's the key to performance.

All you need to do is reinstall windows fresh. And then remove useless startup entries that use memory and processor after you put on your Word 2003, printer.. and etc. You can make your 2004 computer be on par with something made last year. You just have to disable what slows it down.

Around here people pay me huge cash so I can make their old computers have the performance of a new, but badly set up new computer.

Or hell, just buy a new one. If you don't how are the manufacturers going to make money?

That's their problem.

Its like leasing a car every few years because "it has problems". You're too lazy to do some maintenance on it, so you just buy a new one. Little do you know that all you neede was to change the oil and reinflate the tires.

Exactly. People get lazy and throw the stuff out!

Since I was 12 y.o. my family started to have some financial problems. But I still wanted stuff, like a PC. What did I do? I started taking old junk from people. If someone were going to throw anything out, I would go there and pick it up. That's how I managed to have a PC.

I can now buy stuff, but I always go cheap and tweak it. Thus, I am able to use the money to another things.

But oh well. Your loss. Support the hardware companies and their huge R&D projects!

And get in line with planned obsolescence!

That's what you think. I have a laptop (64mb ram, pentium 2... 300mhz) running XP Pro. I can use the Internet, Winamp, Office2003 and it runs pretty okay. Not a speed demon but apps load in about 4-5 seconds. So its pretty respectable.

I have a Pentium III 550MHz box at my house running Windows 2000 and it's pretty damn fine for basic use (text, web, im).

You just have to know how to tweak it a little. It took me under 20min to get it working good.

Yes! And you saved like $1.000 you were going to spend on a new computer that would be too expensive for what you need.

 

[djbr]

Awesome. In that case... how do you unlock a Palomino Core? (1900+)

I'd like to get a little more life out of this CPU I'm using... but so far I haven't found a practical method.

I am no expert on overclock, since most stuff I do is based on software and bios settings. My country is hot and it takes a great equipment to make it all cold enough. Plus, when I fix someone else's PC I prefer not to mess with things that may cause unstability, thus more returns.

Still, I played with it for some time, with a Duron 600MHz turned 800MHz that I had on a Asus A7V. These processors were easier to overclock as the multiplier were very easy to unlock, a pencil did the job. And the MB helped too. However, the one you have is famous for being a b1tch in this aspect.

Have you tried overclocking by FSB?

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

:rockon: Smells Like Geek Spirit.... :rockon: