I'm not sure if these are on a scale of 0 or 1 to 6! But what the hell scores higher than a quad core?
I don't think any machine actually scores a 6 right now. Microsoft has reserved higher numbers for future machines, I think.
Your good points emphasize that Vista has a lot of little new features rather that one big new feature: That is indeed the experience most people will have.
The big features in Vista are really for the developers, the people who write software for it. On the surface, it looks like the same OS, but underneath nearly everything has been rewritten.
. . . and lest we forget, XP was heavily accused of being a pig when it was first released. If you load up Windows 2000 on the same machine, it'll go a lot faster than XP.
There is something called Readyboost, which allows you to plug in a flash drive, and the OS uses it to pre-load commonly used date for programs. So it's like having extra ram at the flash card prices, not as fast, but faster than Harddisk speeds I guess. Big deal, well not really. I have my 2 1 GB of them plugged in and it doesn't seem to really be doing anything with them.
Frankly, ReadyBoost is for people with 512 MB or 1 GB of RAM. It's useless for anybody else.
. . . and it only uses one memory stick, it won't use two or more of them.
With each new implementation a substance improvement has been performance. WIN 98 performed better than Win 95. Win 95 better than 3.1 and XP SP2 really beats Vista in every way.
Bull. Every new version of Windows has performed worse than the previous versions on the same machines. XP only seems faster because you're running it on a machine at least a dozen times more powerful than when you were running previous OSes.
More bad VISTA, takes half your ram, and fills it with whatever, and in some circumstances it is supposed to speed up the system. Well, I'm not sure if you need 4 GB ram but with 2 it's working but nothing is faster because of it. It constantly buffers to 1 GB, and from what I understand if you add more ram it fills it half way, I just don't see any performance increase with it.
It's called "SuperFetch" and yes you can turn it off. And yes, the idea is to predict and pre-load your software before you decide to use it. It works best, however, if you do stuff on a schedule, like check your email at the same time every day.
It feels like with all this loaded into the memory you'd see efficiency and cutting down loading times.
Theoretically, if you stick to a schedule. If you don't stick to a schedule, you may be better off turning it off.
Out of the box and as far as I can tell with the latest updates, there are 60 processes running, and I have no idea what the bulk of them do, but they appear to keep the OS in line and unhackable for the time being.
BlackViper has done a good job detailing what they do:
Another thing that sucks, and this is legendary at this point, is the constantly popping up goddamn UAC thing.
Ed Bott has some advice on how to make it less annoying without compromising a lot of your security:
Basically everytime you try to install something, it asks your permisison to do it.
That's the idea. You don't want random programs installing themselves without
your permission, do you? A lot of malware doesn't even bother to ask.
Seriously, are you really constantly installing software?
With premium versions of Windows past, you used to get MS Word or Excel or something worth owning a computer for.
False. That was the OEMs doing it, and they still do. You never got Office from an off the shelf version of Windows.
Flight Simulator X, dropped the Windows Aero to some crappy minimalist view because I was running this program.
Vista's new Aero uses hardware acceleration. Many video cards, especially older ones, simply cannot handle multiple software using the acceleration simultaneously. Therefore, for compatibility reasons, yes, Vista will switch away from the hardware accelerated theme when another program wants access to the video card.
Especially when it installs an update, it keep the computer running longer than it shuts down, then when you power it up again later, it still is running that update in the beginning.
I hate to say this, but XP does this also!
Microsoft has never had an OS that never required a reboot when upgrading, and both XP and Vista will run updates when going through the restart process. If you want an OS that almost never requires a restart for updates, try Linux.
Also, I can't seem to get it to be compatible with software I wanna run. A year out from its release It doesn't wanna play with anything but Flight Simulator X. I can't get Supreme Commander to update, I cant' get the Crysis beta to work, I can't get CounterStrike 1.6 to even install.
Considering Crysis has long been released, it looks like I'm replying to a pretty old post. Most of those issues should be resolved now. Nero 8 works fine.
I'd say that Vista currently has almost compatibility issues with new machines. There may still be some problems with older machines, but it's a lot better than when the author of this thread started it.
I am having difficulty finding installed programs lol.
They're in the same place XP put them: In the Start Menu.
I found the control panel and the my computer, but that should come stock on the desktop lol.
XP didn't do that, and the Control Panel should be a place you rarely visit anyways.
Smooth, fast install, but I couldn't get my RAID to work. So I'm not sure if that is the OS or if that is my BIOS.
I'm going to vote BIOS because I had problems with RAID in XP. In fact, I highly recommend not
using the RAID that comes with a motherboard. Motherboard based RAID has proven to be very unreliable, and frankly you can just use backup software and create a backup instead of using RAID.
I ended up doing that: Instead of using RAID, I just create a backup on a regular basis. There's really no advantage to using RAID on a home system. Leave RAID to the big businesses and their servers.
So here's my advice:
-Put UAC in the background without disabling it, using the ZDNet article I linked to.
-Turn of services you don't need using BlackViper's website as a reference.
-Disable SuperFetch. It's one of the services.
--This may or may not help. Disabling it should improve boot time, but may hurt overall performance. Experiment and find what works best for you.
responsible for a lot of complaints about Vista's memory usage, because it will
cache as much as it can. This will lead to a significant performance increase if it predicts correctly. However, if it does not predict correctly, it will be like XP and will have to load the program from the hard drive.
-Unless you have a 1 GB or less system, you really don't need ReadyBoost. Set it to manual or disable it.
-The indexer for the search can also slow things down a bit if it's doing heavy indexing. However, this is usually done during idle time. It can be tweaked in the "Power Options" in the control panel - select "Change plan settings" and select "Change advanced power settings" and it should be under "Search and Indexing."
What you're basically seeing is that yes, Vista will do a lot of stuff at boot time, but it does so to make things faster later.
My recommendation, by the way, is to basically leave the computer running as long as possible. Frankly, Vista is not
an OS that is designed to be turned on and off constantly. In addition, constant turning on and off a computer adds an incredible amount of wear and tear on the hard drives and reduce their lifetime greatly. Vista works best when the computer is always on.