Vista??

  • Thread starter Thread starter BigJim
  • Start date Start date
At some point you have to let go of your old DOS and Windows 3.11
programs and move on to newer (and often improved) software. The
same goes for old and outdated hardware components. Generally, the
shelf life of software and hardware is about 3-5 years before updates
or newer versions are *needed*, IMO.

And FYI, almost all of my older XP games and software run fine under
Vista. Some requiring minor tweaks, but nothing very daunting to do.

I had my old XP box up and running for over 5 years, but it was at
the end of it's meaningful life at that point, IMO. It was time to
update hardware/software with a new system. Installing Vista
clean on the new system was the best option, IMO.

I have Vista running flawlessly, and even run the virtual operating
systems of Solaris 10 Unix and Ubuntu Linux under Vista without
a single problem.

What programs, exactly, are you having so much trouble running
under Vista? How old are they and are there newer versions or
patches that address compatibility issues?

I really don't understand the bitterness over Vista. It just doesn't
make much sense to me.

- Scott Smith: (e-mail address removed)
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Click to expand...

I don't understand it either. I understood the bitterness about XP
when that first came out - man, talk about driver problems!

To me, Vista has been the smoothest upgrade experience since owning an
MS OS. And that's before a service pack came out to boot.

I wonder if a lot of people give Vista grief because their machines
and software are just really old and are stubborn when it comes to
change? (i'm not making generalisations here, just saying).

I was stubborn at first - after all I finally had a stable OS in XP
and Vista seemed to come out so soon but I'm glad i made the switch.
 
I don't understand it either. I understood the bitterness about XP
when that first came out - man, talk about driver problems!

To me, Vista has been the smoothest upgrade experience since owning an
MS OS. And that's before a service pack came out to boot.

I wonder if a lot of people give Vista grief because their machines
and software are just really old and are stubborn when it comes to
change? (i'm not making generalisations here, just saying).

I was stubborn at first - after all I finally had a stable OS in XP
and Vista seemed to come out so soon but I'm glad i made the switch.
Click to expand...


Yes. I think just about any Microsoft OS takes about a year for
most of the bugs to get ironed out with hotfixes and service packs.
That's also about the timeframe it takes for hardware developers
to come out with stable and reliable drivers for new operating
systems.

The main beef I have with the MS operating systems is their
myriad of security holes and vulnerabilites...but those can usually
be resolved by hotfixes or third party security/antivirus apps.

I tend to be an operating system junkie, and have run various
operating systems (both physically and virtually) over the years
ranging from MacOS, OS/2 and various flavors of Unix and
Linux. Microsoft does a lot right, and a considerable amount
of things wrong, but not much more than other operating
systems, IMO. At least Microsoft spends a considerable amount
of time working with various developers to fix issues, and they
do a good job of addressing security issues as quickly as
possible, too.

I honestly don't see Vista as being as bad (or as minor of a
release) as something like Windows ME. That was just a
glorified version of Win98 with service packs and hotfixes,
with a few GUI changes. I never even bothered with it. I
just went from 98 to XP.

Vista was a major overhaul from XP, IMO.




- Scott Smith: (e-mail address removed)
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
 
Vista is by far, the worst OS Microsoft has come out with. I had
better luck with win me. I wont buy a new PC if it has Vista on it,
and cannot be downgraded to XP. I tried the readyboost thing with a
4gb sanddisk and it still sucked all my resources dry, and thats with
4gbs of DDR2 800mhz ram.
Click to expand...


That sounds more like a hardware issue than a Vista issue, IMO.





- Scott Smith: (e-mail address removed)
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
 
Oh I'm not calling anyone haters, hope I didn't come off that way! :-)

At work, we're on XP. Of course, we're also using Lotus Notes which
has got to be the most god awful email program ever designed. But
that's another thread ;-)
Click to expand...
Fighting it out with Outlook Express for that crown?

What's terrible about Lotus Notes isn't that it's so bad; but that
companies force you to use that crapola instead of better stuff.
 
Fighting it out with Outlook Express for that crown?

What's terrible about Lotus Notes isn't that it's so bad; but that
companies force you to use that crapola instead of better stuff.



--
_____
/ ' / (tm)
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
Click to expand...

What is UAC? what does it do?
 
S. Smith said:
Personally, I went with Vista Ultimate. It arrived with two DVD's, one
with the 32-bit version and one with the 64-bit version. I had the
64-bit version installed originally, but due to some incompatibility
with drivers, I reformatted and went with the 32-bit version. No
problems at all since.

I chose the Ultimate version because I needed the IIS Web server,
and also wanted the Bitblocker encryption.

Overall, I am very happy with it. Keep in mind I researched and made
sure that all my hardware components were compatible with Vista and
had good drivers.

I've heard some saying that they went back to XP, but I can't see even
a single reason for me to ever consider doing that. I've been running
Vista for almost a year now, and with very good results.

Also, Direct X 10 for gaming isn't even an option on XP, is it?





- Scott Smith: (e-mail address removed)
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
Click to expand...
I just put together a PC and it runs on 64 bit Vista Ultimate OS. Have
no problems.
 
S. Smith said:
Also, Direct X 10 for gaming isn't even an option on XP, is it?
Click to expand...

You can thank M$ for that. Some hackers have proven that DX10 games CAN
be run on a WinXP DX9 machine even though M$ claimed it was impossible.
M$ are doing this to FORCE people to "upgrade" to Vista.
 
You can thank M$ for that. Some hackers have proven that DX10 games CAN
be run on a WinXP DX9 machine even though M$ claimed it was impossible.
M$ are doing this to FORCE people to "upgrade" to Vista.
Click to expand...

You're not being "forced" to do anything. If you want/need
Direct X 10 support, get Vista. If not, stay with XP. You do
have a choice in the matter.





- Scott Smith: (e-mail address removed)
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
 
....
Oh, and you also have the choice to use a hacked up and
unsupported install of Direct X 10 under XP, if that's the way
you want to go. Personally, I'd stay away from that, but YMMV.
Click to expand...

Software publishers make money from selling copies. I doubt any
non-Microsoft games require DirectX 10 yet anyway, considering the
great number of Windows XP users. I don't upgrade until it's
necessary.

The original poster could have better named this thread, but IMO you
answered the body question.

Good luck and have fun.
 
I don't understand it either. I understood the bitterness about XP
when that first came out - man, talk about driver problems!

To me, Vista has been the smoothest upgrade experience since owning an
MS OS. And that's before a service pack came out to boot.

I wonder if a lot of people give Vista grief because their machines
and software are just really old and are stubborn when it comes to
change? (i'm not making generalisations here, just saying).

I was stubborn at first - after all I finally had a stable OS in XP
and Vista seemed to come out so soon but I'm glad i made the switch.
Click to expand...


I'm not really "anti-anything" just yet, but I can understand the
bitterness factor. I have been fighting with Vista 64 on a new pc for
about a week now, and I still can't run much on it. However, I'm
wondering if I have a defective board. I have the Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3R
with a Q6600 processor. I ran into problems immediately, as the bios
didn't recognize the Q6600 and misreported it as something else. I
flashed the bios to get past that problem. However, then the "pre"
versions of the SATA RAID drivers would not work, and Vista would not
install. I eventually solved that problem by downloading the newest
drivers directly from the Intel web site (the newest ones on the
Gigabyte web site would not work, either). I could go on and on and
on... it has been one problem after another. I am very patient, but
this thing has almost pushed me to the limit. I now have Vista 64 up
and running, but I get random BSODs every little while. If I try to
update the video drivers for my eVGA GeForce 7900 GT, the screen
changes to a flashing pink and blue mess of squiggly lines, and I am
forced to cold boot in safe mode and remove the drivers. Without being
able to update my video drivers, basically not much will run (e.g.
can't run video in media player, can't install or run any games,
etc.). I like the Vista interface and they have made some definite
improvements, but at the moment it's not of much use to me. About all
I can do on it is check my email and play solitaire. Therefore, you
can imagine the frustration.

Would anything in your experience with it shed any light on why I am
having so many problems. I believe you said you were using the same
board. I have two Seagate 500gb drives in RAID 0, so possibly it just
doesn't like RAID. It's not memory, as I have tried four different
individual sticks. Mind you, if I put all 4 sticks in together, it
won't even boot... even with all the related patches applied. This is
frustrating in itself, as I went with Vista 64 for the sole purpose of
being able to add more RAM. Is it possible these problems would just
be related to the 64-bit version? I'm tempted to revert to 32-bit, but
am not sure I'm ready for all the hassle all over again. The other
thing I'm wondering is if my mobo is defective. It is extremely
sensitive to power fluctuations, even though I have everything plugged
in to an APC UPS. If you plug in something in the next room, the Vista
machine will go into some type of sleep mode, and never come out. I
have to power it down.

If anyone else is running into nightmares like this, I can imagine
them blaming it on Vista and being ready to heave it out the window. I
have worked in the IT industry for 21 years, and I've never had a
computer experience as miserable as this one. However, I guess the
next trick is to determine if it's actually all caused by Vista or
not.
 
I'm not really "anti-anything" just yet, but I can understand the
bitterness factor. I have been fighting with Vista 64 on a new pc for
about a week now, and I still can't run much on it. However, I'm
wondering if I have a defective board. I have the Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3R
with a Q6600 processor. I ran into problems immediately, as the bios
didn't recognize the Q6600 and misreported it as something else. I
flashed the bios to get past that problem. However, then the "pre"
versions of the SATA RAID drivers would not work, and Vista would not
install. I eventually solved that problem by downloading the newest
drivers directly from the Intel web site (the newest ones on the
Gigabyte web site would not work, either). I could go on and on and
on... it has been one problem after another. I am very patient, but
this thing has almost pushed me to the limit. I now have Vista 64 up
and running, but I get random BSODs every little while. If I try to
update the video drivers for my eVGA GeForce 7900 GT, the screen
changes to a flashing pink and blue mess of squiggly lines, and I am
forced to cold boot in safe mode and remove the drivers. Without being
able to update my video drivers, basically not much will run (e.g.
can't run video in media player, can't install or run any games,
etc.). I like the Vista interface and they have made some definite
improvements, but at the moment it's not of much use to me. About all
I can do on it is check my email and play solitaire. Therefore, you
can imagine the frustration.

Would anything in your experience with it shed any light on why I am
having so many problems. I believe you said you were using the same
board. I have two Seagate 500gb drives in RAID 0, so possibly it just
doesn't like RAID. It's not memory, as I have tried four different
individual sticks. Mind you, if I put all 4 sticks in together, it
won't even boot... even with all the related patches applied. This is
frustrating in itself, as I went with Vista 64 for the sole purpose of
being able to add more RAM. Is it possible these problems would just
be related to the 64-bit version? I'm tempted to revert to 32-bit, but
am not sure I'm ready for all the hassle all over again. The other
thing I'm wondering is if my mobo is defective. It is extremely
sensitive to power fluctuations, even though I have everything plugged
in to an APC UPS. If you plug in something in the next room, the Vista
machine will go into some type of sleep mode, and never come out. I
have to power it down.

If anyone else is running into nightmares like this, I can imagine
them blaming it on Vista and being ready to heave it out the window. I
have worked in the IT industry for 21 years, and I've never had a
computer experience as miserable as this one. However, I guess the
next trick is to determine if it's actually all caused by Vista or
not.
Click to expand...

Hey Sheldon, I own the same motherboard - got it when it first came
out. I don't have a Quad Core *but* i did run Vista 64-bit on it as
well as 32-bit and didnt have one problem. Honestly. I'm not just
saying that to be contrary.

I built 2 machines around the ga-p35-ds3r and sold the 64-bit version
after a month (when i realised i dont need 64-bit and 4 gb's of ram).

i still own the ga-p35-ds3r, 2gb's of ram, non-raid (the other was non-
raid as well) and vista 32-bit.

You might have a defective motherboard? Have you considered RMA'ing
it?
 
Hey Sheldon, I own the same motherboard - got it when it first came
out. I don't have a Quad Core *but* i did run Vista 64-bit on it as
well as 32-bit and didnt have one problem. Honestly. I'm not just
saying that to be contrary.

I built 2 machines around the ga-p35-ds3r and sold the 64-bit version
after a month (when i realised i dont need 64-bit and 4 gb's of ram).

i still own the ga-p35-ds3r, 2gb's of ram, non-raid (the other was non-
raid as well) and vista 32-bit.

You might have a defective motherboard? Have you considered RMA'ing
it?
Click to expand...

Yup, it turns out to be a defective board. It died altogether on me
last night and wouldn't even post. It would just "groan" and restart
continuously. I RMAed it and NCIX is sending me a new one. I'd still
like to try it with Vista, although I may dual boot to XP.

You were actually able to boot into Vista with 4 gb of RAM installed?
Mine wouldn't even boot with all 4 gb installed. RAM is cheap, so it
wasn't a big deal, but I wanted to see how well it would use it. Maybe
that was a mobo flaw, too. I may have to try it again.
 
Yup, it turns out to be a defective board. It died altogether on me
last night and wouldn't even post. It would just "groan" and restart
continuously. I RMAed it and NCIX is sending me a new one. I'd still
like to try it with Vista, although I may dual boot to XP.

You were actually able to boot into Vista with 4 gb of RAM installed?
Mine wouldn't even boot with all 4 gb installed. RAM is cheap, so it
wasn't a big deal, but I wanted to see how well it would use it. Maybe
that was a mobo flaw, too. I may have to try it again.
Click to expand...

yes, if we're still talking about the GA-P35-DS3R, i had four 1gb
sticks of Crucial Ballistix ram installed and Vista 64-bit and it
recognized the ram and ran perfectly.

Could have just been your board.
 
Back
Top