Vista RC1, from: I hate it, to: I Love it :-)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Local Account
  • Start date Start date
L

Local Account

I've installed Vista RC1 under several Vmware and Microsoft virtual
machines, and my impression was always negative, it is just too slow and too
ugly there.

But today, I've installed Vista RC1 on a real machine, my Toshiba Tecra
tablet PC, with a Nvidia graphics card, and with the glass interface
enabled.

Suddenly, everything just changed, Vista is actually running faster, and the
graphics is amazing.

Now I got it, that OS was never designed to work in the standard or basic
interface, that OS was designed to work with the glass interface :-)

Anyway, I should say good work Microsoft, I have tons of posting here
criticizing Vista under a VM, but under a real machine it is just beautiful,
I love it :-)
 
Local said:
I've installed Vista RC1 under several Vmware and Microsoft virtual
machines, and my impression was always negative, it is just too slow and too
ugly there.

But today, I've installed Vista RC1 on a real machine, my Toshiba Tecra
tablet PC, with a Nvidia graphics card, and with the glass interface
enabled.

Suddenly, everything just changed, Vista is actually running faster, and the
graphics is amazing.

Now I got it, that OS was never designed to work in the standard or basic
interface, that OS was designed to work with the glass interface :-)

Anyway, I should say good work Microsoft, I have tons of posting here
criticizing Vista under a VM, but under a real machine it is just beautiful,
I love it :-)
Click to expand...

I know what you mean the glass interface is great and actually was a
main reason I upgraded my Ati 9200 (128 megs. of video memory) to the
Ati 9800 XT with 256 megabytes of memory and a supported 4x/8x AGP and
my computer supports the faster 8x AGP. The 9200 Radeon is no longer
supported by Ati and the minimum of this Radeon series now supported is
the 9500. I called up their technical support for information about
this, found out the best video card I could get and bought it from Ebay.
I have an Atec power supply with over 400 watts of power. Anybody,
who purchases this card will need to attach it to the power supply since
it has its own fan and you want a big case with lots of cooling as well.
It is actually heavy for a video card. <grin> I did not go the Nvidia
route because I once got a G-Force video card from them and it
completely trashed my older computer which I was upgrading from a 3dfx
video card. I returned the Nvidia card to Best Buy, rolled back my old
computer system with Goback, reinstalled my old video card and
everything was normal. Next, I tried an Ati graphics card and it worked
without issues so I have been an Ati fan ever since. I am upgrading my
current custom built computer <actually it is a Falcon Northwest
computer but only has the original case, monitor and 3.5 inch floppy
from the original machine> memory from 512 megabytes 2700 ddr ram to a
faster ddr ram with 2 modules of a 1 gigabyte stick each for my ASUS
motherboard which supports a maximum of 4 gigabytes of ddr memory. It
does not support ddr 2. I could not get a better video card than this
since I still use and run 98SE which is supported through the Windows ME
driver.
 
This may be a strange comment but if you download a new OS to preview it or
test it, Why would you even use Vmware ?
Surely running it on a real machine would show you it's full potential
 
Will, the use of a VM for testing with past OSs was based on its safety,
reproduction, and flexibility. The hardware tools associated with the VM
were basically the same as the desktop, and therefore the similarity was
adequate for evaluation.

Everything has changed with Vista, and the tools with VM will run the OS in
a degraded pattern, which leaves many of the exciting features in the dust.
It nevertheless is a safe way to make standard assessments of the new system.
 
I use the virtual machines for development and as personal machines, they
are very easy to install, rollback, migrate, etc. software development is
just way easier using them.

Vmware 5.5 and vmware server, is able to run Windows XP and Windows 2003
with the same speed of the host machine (almost the same speed, and
acceptable enough), I am now assuming that vmware did lots of work to
achieve that; and that explains the large performance differences between
vmware and Microsoft VM, Microsoft is still way behind.

But I think Vmware has lots of work to do now, to get the same performance
of Vista under the virtual machine, as the real machine.
 
Back
Top