Vista: Install or not?

Drop by and talk about anything you want. This is where all cheese-related discussions should go
User avatar
JesterJ.
Posts: 6893
Joined: 12 Nov 2005, 23:00
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Vista: Install or not?

Postby JesterJ. » 04 Apr 2008, 18:20

So I just got a free copy of Windows Vista from doing a Microsoft Usability Study a little while ago; however, I'm stuck, I don't know if I should install it or not. I've heard from many sources that it sucks, but also from others that the former are on crack, and Vista runs fine. I was wondering if anyone here had experience with Vista and could explain [preferably in a bit of detail] whether or not installing it now is a good idea. Are there lots of BSODs? Bugs with running games? The general slowdown isn't important to me, my computer is near the high end and can handle it, the biggest thing is whether or not the rumors are all true and it's balls, or whether those people are over-exaggerating everything. I know a lot of people here are pretty proficient with computers, so I figured it would be a good place to ask. Thanks in advance!

TL;DR: Vista: install or not? (I know, who would have guessed?).
"Good thing we got Jester to carry." -Morgan, January 20th, 2009
User avatar
Red Charlie
Posts: 1060
Joined: 06 Mar 2007, 16:17
Location: Northern Ireland
Contact:

Postby Red Charlie » 04 Apr 2008, 18:34

One: Vista, completely fresh install. Don't partition it. I've heard plenty of stories of people moving files from an XP partition to a Vista one and it going horribly horribly wrong. Back up on a file server/another pc and transfer from that.

Two: Unsuitability, yes. It does have SOME elements of instability mainly the anti-spy ware device ironically called "Windows Defender". I have trawled through my services and disabled whatever I felt was fluff and it runs smoothly, personally if you don't modify your start up programs or your services for your windows pc then you should just buy a mac. I haven't had a BSOD even when trying to put the damn thing under pressure. (You will find a bucket load of services you can disable/enable to make vista run faster already on google all of them are different its personal taste and what services you ACTUALLY need).
The only screwy problem I've had is with my wireless keyboard and mouse but that ended being an incompatibly issue with the support software that tells me if the batteries or low or if there's bad signal. So I removed that and they run smooth. (A fresh install of Vista WILL crash on wireless mice/keyboards if you do not install their vista drivers first)

Three: Games. I play quiet a few. I would list them but I'll stick to major ones instead. COD4 ok, HL2 series ok, GTA2+ ok (One just won't work), NWN+ ok, Dawn of war ok. I even got Rail road Tycoon 2 working and Red Alert original working using the XP patches for it.

Four: I say if your pc can handle go for it but only if you do a fresh install. As I said people doing partition installs have screwed their hard drives (one guy found his HD completely CLEANED of actual metal lining on the inside cos of some fantastic conflict generated between vista interaction with XP, which makes me think he just made some sort of super virus).

Course I'm still doing silly things anyway using my IE/Mozilla combo again because some web pages just work better on the other handy having dual screens.
I haven't come across any major issues with apple products yet (what limited amounts I use anyway, itunes, quicktime) so I don't Windows has gone on a hate trip on them at least. Can't think of anything else, my spelling grammar and use of the brackets are completely inappropriate in places within this post.

PS: Also I forgot to mention I am using a machine designed with Vista in mind. That is everything down to the mobo is designed with vista as the OS of choice for it. So much so that I was told by the manufacturers that even attempting to install XP on it would be pointless as XP will not be able to identify the hard drive.

PPS: Finally don't bother with 64 bit. I'm sure you've already read the post in this forum that in my opinion that 64 bit is completely useless because no major software designer has embraced its use yet. Vista only made it more difficult by forcing you to pay 100+ x currency for it anyway. So I don't see any software designers making a band of love wagons for it yet.
Last edited by Red Charlie on 04 Apr 2008, 18:39, edited 1 time in total.
It was really too big:

I give you this instead


.
User avatar
JesterJ.
Posts: 6893
Joined: 12 Nov 2005, 23:00
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Postby JesterJ. » 04 Apr 2008, 18:38

Thanks for the in-depth reply.
Anyone else have something to add to this? The part about having to be a clean install bothers me...It would take more work than it's worth to move my shit to an external HD, reformat, install Vista, and move everything back. That's something like a day or two of work (slow transfers), all without a computer. I....I wouldn't be able to take it.
"Good thing we got Jester to carry." -Morgan, January 20th, 2009
User avatar
Red Charlie
Posts: 1060
Joined: 06 Mar 2007, 16:17
Location: Northern Ireland
Contact:

Postby Red Charlie » 04 Apr 2008, 18:45

JesterJ. wrote:Thanks for the in-depth reply.
Anyone else have something to add to this? The part about having to be a clean install bothers me...It would take more work than it's worth to move my shit to an external HD, reformat, install Vista, and move everything back. That's something like a day or two of work (slow transfers), all without a computer. I....I wouldn't be able to take it.


In regards to that. What I understand is this.

People make another part in their enmourous hard drive. They install Vista then they begin the transfer of moving files from XP-Vista. They start up Vista and BOOM it all goes haywire.

Now thats ALL I have heard. I not heard anyone try to use another HD and transfer to it instead or even just ghosting XP then cleaning the HD and installing Vista, ghosting XP into another part and then transfering.

I think the problem with the part is that Vista didn't make the part and being the younger brother goes into huff mode, however this is only speculation and not based on any technical information I have gleaned. (Plus I have gigbit lan so moving stuff was more organsing a folder and transfering whilst I went to work for the day, which unfortunately for you is not at your house :))
It was really too big:



I give you this instead





.
User avatar
theINC
Posts: 506
Joined: 04 Nov 2007, 02:38
Location: South Australia
Contact:

Postby theINC » 04 Apr 2008, 19:10

Not at all an indepth response, but I'm a Vista/Mac user (not on the same computer - i have a Macbook and a desktop PC), and Vista's done everything that my XP PC did, and a little more.

What are the specs of the computer you're installing Vista on? I think that's the main determining factor.
Image
Woland owes me 10 points.
User avatar
Jarannis
Posts: 16
Joined: 04 Apr 2008, 13:38
Location: Denver, CO
Contact:

Postby Jarannis » 04 Apr 2008, 19:29

Eh... I won't go TOO hog wild on dissecting various fallacies you've heard elsewhere, but let my try to revoke some doom-saying I've seen here, mmkay?

1: Yes, some things CAN go haywire during install causing complete hard-drive wipeage, but that's usually user error. USUALLY

2: the way I see it, and hear it, any issues caused by having XP and Vista installed are most likely easily attributed to a problem with the boot loader. There are ways of restoring the XP boot loader that would allow you to access XP again if the Vista install goes bad. The only snag is that the XP fix requires an XP install CD (NOT a system restore disc)

3: For the love of god, tell me your system meets recc-spec... if not, it's not even worth the effort. Unfortunately I know all too well...

So, there's my top 3 fallacy un...fallacy...things

Vista isn't absolutely horrid, only mildly so. If you do get it running, let us know how it goes :P
User avatar
tak197
Feito Com Fruta
Posts: 9010
Joined: 13 Mar 2007, 19:20
First Video: How To Talk Like A Pirate
Location: Stroudsburg, PA
Contact:

Postby tak197 » 04 Apr 2008, 19:34

Do not install it until SP1 is out. If you are going to install Vista, either do that or remove XP as your OS first. Most of the problems I have heard about are people upgrading, not getting it pre-installed.
Image
Image
User avatar
JesterJ.
Posts: 6893
Joined: 12 Nov 2005, 23:00
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Postby JesterJ. » 04 Apr 2008, 19:38

2.4 dualcore, 2 gigs of ram, etc. I've got plenty.
Hopefully with SP1 they'll fix it and let me just upgrade...the other seems too much of a hassle :?
"Good thing we got Jester to carry." -Morgan, January 20th, 2009
User avatar
meisbored
Posts: 739
Joined: 03 Jun 2007, 21:42
First Video: Daylight Savings
Location: Victoria
Contact:

Postby meisbored » 04 Apr 2008, 21:50

I haven't read the entire thread, but as I see it there is really no need to install Vista. I haven't heard about anything it can do that you can't do with XP other than the security stuff, which I get by without just fine. I have only used Vista a little on other people's computers, and it has always been either really slow or equal to XP but with more annoying things like asking you to allow stuff.

So... no.
User avatar
Pattmyn
Posts: 331
Joined: 22 Jul 2007, 14:45
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Contact:

Postby Pattmyn » 05 Apr 2008, 00:07

tak197 wrote:Do not install it until SP1 is out. If you are going to install Vista, either do that or remove XP as your OS first. Most of the problems I have heard about are people upgrading, not getting it pre-installed.


Agree on both of those parts. SP1 is going to have some really nice fixes and it would be best to move a clean OS up to the new service pack. If it's feasible, use Arconis or something to image your current machine, slap Vista on, see how it preforms/if you even like it and then make your decision based on that. All else fails, you have the image to fall back on.
User avatar
Wraith
Posts: 2882
Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 01:49
First Video: Canadian Approval Board
Location: Fredericksburg, VA. USA
Contact:

Re: Vista: Install or not?

Postby Wraith » 05 Apr 2008, 01:56

JesterJ. wrote:So I just got a free copy of Windows Vista from doing a Microsoft Usability Study a little while ago; however, I'm stuck, I don't know if I should install it or not. I've heard from many sources that it sucks, but also from others that the former are on crack, and Vista runs fine. I was wondering if anyone here had experience with Vista and could explain [preferably in a bit of detail] whether or not installing it now is a good idea. Are there lots of BSODs? Bugs with running games? The general slowdown isn't important to me, my computer is near the high end and can handle it, the biggest thing is whether or not the rumors are all true and it's balls, or whether those people are over-exaggerating everything. I know a lot of people here are pretty proficient with computers, so I figured it would be a good place to ask. Thanks in advance!

TL;DR: Vista: install or not? (I know, who would have guessed?).


It all comes down to one question: what are your specs.

Also, if you've waited this long, you might as well wait just a little bit longer, as Service pack 1 is due out very soon.
-Wraith
User avatar
Wraith
Posts: 2882
Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 01:49
First Video: Canadian Approval Board
Location: Fredericksburg, VA. USA
Contact:

Postby Wraith » 05 Apr 2008, 02:32

I'll post about how to do a proper Vista-compliant multi-boot later on. It can be done quite easily with a little third-part freeware assistance.
-Wraith
User avatar
AndyTheSkanker
Posts: 483
Joined: 06 Dec 2007, 13:55
Location: Scotland =D
Contact:

Postby AndyTheSkanker » 05 Apr 2008, 04:11

Red Charlie wrote:
JesterJ. wrote:Thanks for the in-depth reply.
Anyone else have something to add to this? The part about having to be a clean install bothers me...It would take more work than it's worth to move my shit to an external HD, reformat, install Vista, and move everything back. That's something like a day or two of work (slow transfers), all without a computer. I....I wouldn't be able to take it.


In regards to that. What I understand is this.

People make another part in their enmourous hard drive. They install Vista then they begin the transfer of moving files from XP-Vista. They start up Vista and BOOM it all goes haywire.

Now thats ALL I have heard. I not heard anyone try to use another HD and transfer to it instead or even just ghosting XP then cleaning the HD and installing Vista, ghosting XP into another part and then transfering.

I think the problem with the part is that Vista didn't make the part and being the younger brother goes into huff mode, however this is only speculation and not based on any technical information I have gleaned. (Plus I have gigbit lan so moving stuff was more organsing a folder and transfering whilst I went to work for the day, which unfortunately for you is not at your house :))


Jiggawha? All MS installers are designed to recognize pre-dating versions of windows, it really shouldn't be, and normally isn't if you can operate a boot.ini file without bollocking it up, a problem.
Kick her in the taco, paco
Non Sequiteur Champagne!
Image
Image
User avatar
Red Charlie
Posts: 1060
Joined: 06 Mar 2007, 16:17
Location: Northern Ireland
Contact:

Postby Red Charlie » 05 Apr 2008, 04:39

Like I said based of no technical information just pure spectulation but when I was looking to buy a new pc and was checking out Vista. Thats all I saw as the "one big problem" Vista had was upgrading from XP to Vista and that at that time it was better to wipe your HD and then move on to Vista.
It was really too big:



I give you this instead





.
User avatar
AndyTheSkanker
Posts: 483
Joined: 06 Dec 2007, 13:55
Location: Scotland =D
Contact:

Postby AndyTheSkanker » 05 Apr 2008, 05:09

Red Charlie wrote:Like I said based of no technical information just pure spectulation but when I was looking to buy a new pc and was checking out Vista. Thats all I saw as the "one big problem" Vista had was upgrading from XP to Vista and that at that time it was better to wipe your HD and then move on to Vista.


That's just good practice with any install of an OS. If you can, clean it. But I'd say you're fine with dual booting, I know plenty of people who've done it and not fucked up.
Kick her in the taco, paco

Non Sequiteur Champagne!

Image

Image
User avatar
Nomadic
Posts: 1157
Joined: 19 Mar 2008, 20:58
First Video: Serious Cravings
Location: Great...now I don't know how fast I'm going.

Postby Nomadic » 05 Apr 2008, 06:33

I'm running Vista and it seems to work just fine. There's a bit more hassle when working with cracked games and whatnot, but if you have any computer savvy, you should be ok...not to mention that Vista can use very little system resources if you tell it to do so.

Yes, it has it's flaws, but for 80% of the stuff you'd do on an XP machine it's fine...and the other 20% you don't care about.
Successfully lurking since 1709.
User avatar
iwashere33
Posts: 391
Joined: 26 Oct 2007, 06:07
First Video: Halo: The Future of Gaming
Location: Australia

Postby iwashere33 » 06 Apr 2008, 05:50

i wouldn't buy it that's for sure.

with vista, networking is easier as along as your do it their way. for instance if you want to share a random folder, give up now. it can only do the 'public' folder with sharing.

xp is much more compatible with programs and is better on system resources.

vista, is buggy and crashes often. almost every day if you run certain program - and no you don't get told what programs are causing it.

xp is cheaper and easier to setup.

--------
the verdict is, wait for service pack 1 for vista to come out before you even think about buying a new system that comes with it pre-installed.

if you have any special programs (coding, grahpic editing) then you really need to CHECK to make sure it will run under vista. otherwise you may lose a lot of money
Ian McKellen, now!
User avatar
AndyTheSkanker
Posts: 483
Joined: 06 Dec 2007, 13:55
Location: Scotland =D
Contact:

Postby AndyTheSkanker » 06 Apr 2008, 06:09

iwashere33 wrote:i wouldn't buy it that's for sure.

with vista, networking is easier as along as your do it their way. for instance if you want to share a random folder, give up now. it can only do the 'public' folder with sharing.

xp is much more compatible with programs and is better on system resources.

vista, is buggy and crashes often. almost every day if you run certain program - and no you don't get told what programs are causing it.

xp is cheaper and easier to setup.

--------
the verdict is, wait for service pack 1 for vista to come out before you even think about buying a new system that comes with it pre-installed.

if you have any special programs (coding, grahpic editing) then you really need to CHECK to make sure it will run under vista. otherwise you may lose a lot of money


I have yet to see a single full vista crash on supported hardware. There's a reason the windows catalogue exists. Check your shit first. Also, XP is cheaper, but ultimately going to have to give way. The technology, while it still gets the job done, is dated. At the end of the day I'd go with ubuntu myself, but if you need windows, upgrading to vista might not be so bad. It's all about fucking with the settings to make it less patronizing. The default "ZOMGZ THIS IS AN EXE DO YOU KNOW WUT IT DUZ?" shit is annoying, but it can be turned off. I love how you neglected the fact that XP still crashes alot. Vista is better at dealing with program failures without spazzing out though. Just be sure to check the Windows Catalogue and make sure your shit is supported. If it isn't as someone who's a certified MCP I can tell you, support will just tell you to GTFO, and you're to blame. Idiocy kills.
Kick her in the taco, paco

Non Sequiteur Champagne!

Image

Image
User avatar
Red Charlie
Posts: 1060
Joined: 06 Mar 2007, 16:17
Location: Northern Ireland
Contact:

Postby Red Charlie » 06 Apr 2008, 08:25

iwashere33 wrote:stuff


I don't really want to get into arguements about whats better but all those issues can be address with end user modification of services in Vista which I have already addressed in my inital post.

Most programs DO run under vista now without a problem even then any problems I have had, do have a fix or the emulation services provided by Vista actually work this time (unlike XP).

What certain program makes Vista crash so I may go try this? - And no you don't get this "it doesn't tell me" cos YOU ran the program so you must know it.

In regards to XP being cheaper most of my providers are still freakn charging the same price for XP as Vista which is killing cos I wanted to get XP pro for a friend and even then they will only sell it to me with a harddrive that I also have to pay for!! AARGH!

Vista is just as a easy as XP to setup, just turn on the pc if its pre-installed.

The verdict is, yes you can buy Vista now and put on your pc so long as your hardware is supported/can cope with Vista.
But as its already been said a CLEAN install is needed not an upgrade.
Anyway the important thing is giving JesterJ some accurate information yours is easily solvable and I would say don't let what this guy just said put you off JesterJ if you are still thinking about it.
It was really too big:



I give you this instead





.
User avatar
Vaughn
Posts: 2894
Joined: 03 Jan 2008, 04:43
Location: Calgary, Alberta

Postby Vaughn » 06 Apr 2008, 11:06

On the box of Hellgate London:
System requirements-
1GB ram. (2GB vista)
Im morally against vista just on the fact it uses half your ram to run it.
Do the Catterpillar!
*wiggle wiggle*
User avatar
AndyTheSkanker
Posts: 483
Joined: 06 Dec 2007, 13:55
Location: Scotland =D
Contact:

Postby AndyTheSkanker » 06 Apr 2008, 11:23

Vaughn wrote:On the box of Hellgate London:
System requirements-
1GB ram. (2GB vista)
Im morally against vista just on the fact it uses half your ram to run it.


For fuck sake, it's a new OS people. Of course it's going to be more resource intensive. Hell, it even uses a new Direct X. Of course it's more intensive. You cant expect all those nice little embellishments to come without a hardware commitment. It can be tweaked to need less, but there, that's not MS to blame, that's the game developers. Jump off the damn bandwagon, XP's good, but fuck sake, Vista is alot better than all the mac fanboys've made out, get off it's case and deal with it.
Kick her in the taco, paco

Non Sequiteur Champagne!

Image

Image
User avatar
Citin
Posts: 695
Joined: 05 Apr 2007, 21:56
Location: Saskatoon

Postby Citin » 06 Apr 2008, 12:53

Yeah as long as you're not running Vista at the minimum requirements I've never had any many problems with it. Some nice points:

1. It's almost impossible to fully lock it up so that you can't open the task manager

2. The search function built into the start menu actually works and is really quite nice

As long as you know how to maintain your system Vista really can be enjoyable
"I'll be in Africa. If you need me just phone Africa, I told them to expect your call." - The Pointy Haired Boss
User avatar
Lavos
Lavos
Posts: 4783
Joined: 01 Jan 2006, 23:48
First Video: 1337
Location: Vancouver BC

Postby Lavos » 06 Apr 2008, 17:39

I've used vista before and it hasn't ever crashed for me. I use it alot at my cousins house, to play WoW, cs and shit.
So I don't even know what happens when it "crashes" but I would recommend it because it looks pretty.
i dont know what's happening anymore
User avatar
JesterJ.
Posts: 6893
Joined: 12 Nov 2005, 23:00
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Postby JesterJ. » 06 Apr 2008, 18:16

So it looks like the advice is as follows:
1: Clean install, no upgrade?
2: Wait for SP1 (I was planning on it).
3: ??
4: Profit
"Good thing we got Jester to carry." -Morgan, January 20th, 2009
User avatar
theINC
Posts: 506
Joined: 04 Nov 2007, 02:38
Location: South Australia
Contact:

Postby theINC » 06 Apr 2008, 23:22

AndyTheSkanker wrote:
Vaughn wrote:On the box of Hellgate London:
System requirements-
1GB ram. (2GB vista)
Im morally against vista just on the fact it uses half your ram to run it.


For fuck sake, it's a new OS people. Of course it's going to be more resource intensive.


Not to be a douchebag, but Leopard (OS X 10.5) runs better on most Macs than Tiger (10.4).

I do use Vista though, on a 2GB 1.8Ghz dual-core system. No problems.

Will need to upgrade to play crysis though...
Image

Woland owes me 10 points.

Return to “General Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests