 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
So, I bit the bullet and installed Vista Ultimate 64. And I've been
working with it a few weeks now. And what do I think?
I think people just like to complain about Microsoft for no good reason
at all.
Caveat: I have a Core 2 Duo processor, 3GB of RAM, and a decent video
card (7600GT). Obviously, if you try to run it on a ten-year-old
laptop, you're going to have more problems than I do.
Anyway, Vista actually runs faster than my XP Pro installation did, but
only just. The real kicker for me is the disk usage. one thing that's
happened to me several times now, is coming into the room, and thinking
the computer was turned off. I moved the mouse just to make sure, and
the think woke up - completely silent. Even leaving it running a video
encode (I'm still in the process of moving my DVD library to my hdd.
I've had several false starts, and changed my mind on format / quality
settings a couple of times*), the thing will be darn near noiseless.
UAC doesn't bother me at all. But then, I understand what it's there
for, and I'd much rather have it ask me than not. Besides, it's no
worse than the equivalents in Linux and Mac OS.
And the GUI? I waited almost two years after Windows XP was introduced
before I switched from 2K - the XP GUI drove me nuts, and as soon as I
found out about FlyAKiteOSX, I switched my GUI to be a Mac clone. With
Vista, I liked the GUI straight away.
Given how impressed I also am with Office 2007 (separate topic), I think
I'm actually turning into an MS fan.
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Caveat: I have a Core 2 Duo processor, 3GB of RAM, and a decent video
> card (7600GT). Obviously, if you try to run it on a ten-year-old
> laptop, you're going to have more problems than I do.
Even just upgrading from 1GB to 2GB makes quite a large difference, and at
today's RAM prices you'd be really silly to buy Vista without the extra RAM.
> Anyway, Vista actually runs faster than my XP Pro installation did, but
> only just. The real kicker for me is the disk usage.
The real kicker for me is how fast large programs start up compared to XP.
My hefty CAD program is ready to use within a few seconds of clicking, even
the first time after boot. On XP I was waiting for almost a minute
sometimes, I think Vista makes much better use of the RAM, or more
intelligent use of the RAM.
> UAC doesn't bother me at all.
Didn't bother me either, until I had to turn it off for something or other
(POV I think haha), and I haven't got around to turning it back on yet.
That's the point though, you can just turn it off if you want to.
> And the GUI? I waited almost two years after Windows XP was introduced
> before I switched from 2K - the XP GUI drove me nuts, and as soon as I
> found out about FlyAKiteOSX, I switched my GUI to be a Mac clone. With
> Vista, I liked the GUI straight away.
OOC what things about the XP GUI didn't you like that have been
fixed/changed in Vista?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scott com> wrote in message news:491be3a5@news.povray.org...
>
>> UAC doesn't bother me at all.
>
> Didn't bother me either, until I had to turn it off for something or other
> (POV I think haha), and I haven't got around to turning it back on yet.
> That's the point though, you can just turn it off if you want to.
I put up with it for about 3 months until I had a game that for some reason
started triggering UAC alerts while I was playing it. It went off after that
and I never bothered switching it on again.
The one thing I like about Vista is that I've never managed to have a
misbehaving app crashe the entire OS. It happened from time to time on Win
2000. On vista I can kill the app and the OS carries on going
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gail [mailto:gail (at) sql in the wild (dot) co [dot] za]
> The one thing I like about Vista is that I've never managed to have a
> misbehaving app crashe the entire OS. It happened from time to time on
> Win
> 2000. On vista I can kill the app and the OS carries on going
Speaking of which, I don't think I've turned off the computer in about a
week. Quite impressive for Windows! My XP machine got turned off
daily!
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: scott [mailto:sco### [at] scottcom]
> OOC what things about the XP GUI didn't you like that have been
> fixed/changed in Vista?
The widgets. Large, rounded boxes never did it for me.
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail <gail (at) sql in the wild (dot) co [dot] za> wrote:
> The one thing I like about Vista is that I've never managed to have a
> misbehaving app crashe the entire OS. It happened from time to time on Win
> 2000. On vista I can kill the app and the OS carries on going
The first time I used Vista was on a friend's laptop. I got a BSOD in about
5 minutes. The application I was running? Windows' own freecell.
That wasn't very convincing for me.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Caveat: I have a Core 2 Duo processor, 3GB of RAM, and a decent video
> card (7600GT). Obviously, if you try to run it on a ten-year-old
> laptop, you're going to have more problems than I do.
You don't need a ten-year-old laptop. You may have trouble running it
in a modern laptop.
I wish you good luck when MS activates Vista's DRM features in a couple
of years.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers escreveu:
> I think people just like to complain about Microsoft for no good reason
> at all.
Well, in my case there's a pretty good reason: I don't like monopolies.
Specially marketing ones in the IT field.
> UAC doesn't bother me at all. But then, I understand what it's there
> for, and I'd much rather have it ask me than not. Besides, it's no
> worse than the equivalents in Linux and Mac OS.
It's in no way the same as sudo, which only asks once in a while.
But perhaps you're lucky to just get the pos-SP1 Vista? Before that,
Vista would ask you to allow wether or not notepad could should you an
html page source, no kidding.
> And the GUI? I waited almost two years after Windows XP was introduced
> before I switched from 2K - the XP GUI drove me nuts, and as soon as I
> found out about FlyAKiteOSX, I switched my GUI to be a Mac clone. With
> Vista, I liked the GUI straight away.
I liked it too, specially with a black glossy glass theme. It's years
ahead of XP's default teletubbies look. But Blender doesn't play nice
with Aero (and perhaps other OpenGL apps as well) so I just turned it off.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The first time I used Vista was on a friend's laptop. I got a BSOD in about
> 5 minutes. The application I was running? Windows' own freecell.
>
> That wasn't very convincing for me.
You, of all people should know a stop error (BSOD) is caused by
something failing in the kernel, *not* a user app. Probably either bad
hardware or a wonky driver. I've never had Vista bluescreen.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> So, I bit the bullet and installed Vista Ultimate 64. And I've been
> working with it a few weeks now. And what do I think?
>
>
>
> I think people just like to complain about Microsoft for no good reason
> at all.
>
>
>
> Caveat: I have a Core 2 Duo processor, 3GB of RAM, and a decent video
> card (7600GT). Obviously, if you try to run it on a ten-year-old
> laptop, you're going to have more problems than I do.
>
My first experience with Vista was on a low end laptop I purchased early this
year, a 1.8Ghz Celeron with 1GB memory. Performance is not very good, it is
slower than my much older laptop, a 1Ghz AMD with 256M running XP home. I
definitly need to add more memory. The only thing I like better about Vista is
it's wireless networking. Vista is much better at detecting and maintaining
connections. Last month I purchased a new desktop, Intel quad-core with 5GB
memory, running Vista 64-bit. For cpu intensive work, the quad-core runs much
faster than my older dual-core pc. But for other workloads, such as e-mail,
web surfing, word processing etc., it sometimes seems a little sluggish.
>
>
> Anyway, Vista actually runs faster than my XP Pro installation did, but
> only just. The real kicker for me is the disk usage. one thing that's
> happened to me several times now, is coming into the room, and thinking
> the computer was turned off. I moved the mouse just to make sure, and
> the think woke up - completely silent. Even leaving it running a video
> encode (I'm still in the process of moving my DVD library to my hdd.
> I've had several false starts, and changed my mind on format / quality
> settings a couple of times*), the thing will be darn near noiseless.
>
I haven't noticed any change in noise, but thats probably do to the other three
desktops running.
>
>
> UAC doesn't bother me at all. But then, I understand what it's there
> for, and I'd much rather have it ask me than not. Besides, it's no
> worse than the equivalents in Linux and Mac OS.
>
Though I understand what UAC is for, it can still be a PITA. When I install new
software, I usually turn it off until I get the new software working, then turn
it back on. For other users who don't have a clue, I'm not sure how effective
it will be. I have a son-in-law who is completely clueless when it comes to
computers. He currently runs XP, but I don't think Vista would make any
difference. If a message box popped up asking for permission to install a
virus, he would probably click OK. About twice a year I have to go over and
clean out his pc.
>
>
> And the GUI? I waited almost two years after Windows XP was introduced
> before I switched from 2K - the XP GUI drove me nuts, and as soon as I
> found out about FlyAKiteOSX, I switched my GUI to be a Mac clone. With
> Vista, I liked the GUI straight away.
>
The GUI is ok, it looks nice. It's just taking me awhile to find where MS has
moved everything.
>
>
> Given how impressed I also am with Office 2007 (separate topic), I think
> I'm actually turning into an MS fan.
>
>
Though not an MS fan, they do write reasonably good software. A bit bloated at
times, but no worse than most other developers.
>
> ...Ben Chambers
>
> www.pacificwebguy.com
Isaac
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
