ok we are getting an new computer due to the old one crashing. the new one would be mostly for gaming.would i have any problems running my g25 on vista and would i have to install new patches for my other games to work. i would really like some good advise. thanks!

If it was me, I'd stick to the sure thing rather than venture into the unknown (I use XP, and will continue to do so indefinately). Why buy Vista, then realize some things won't work as they used to? Or work slower than they used to (games especially)? Nah, stick with XP until M$ release SP1 for Vista. Even then, upgrading may be a questionable decision...

I'd like to hear what Vista users have to say... (i.e. Jakg )

Hi,

Through luck rather than by good management I bought my PC in January and opted for 2 x 320MB Hard Drives.

I got XP with a Voucher for an upgrade to Vista as it came out later. I now run XP on one drive and Vista on the other.

LFS works fine on both, however there are a number of things that don't seem to work on Vista like burning and I haven't got around to working out the problem as I'm to busy on LFS.

I think Vista is a great program and I wouldn't buy a new PC without it.

I would recomend you run both.

Good Luck
Craig

I too happen to own one(ultimate x86) and i have to say this before you make the biggest mistake in choosing the right hardware if you wanna run vista. You need more than 2/3 GB ram and faster C2D cpu and DX10 gfx card is a must. Drivers aren't and issue now and your g25 or any logitech wheel is gonna run without hiccups. And finally its about choosing the right flavour. Get ultimate if you can and get x64 btw its no difference if you get x86 or x86-64 because if you dont have 64 bit apps; it's useless to have 64 bt for that. im hearing jakg's typing with his kb right about now.

Quote from anik360 :

And finally its about choosing the right flavour. Get ultimate if you can and get x64 btw its no difference if you get x86 or x86-64 because if you dont have 64 bit apps; it's useless to have 64 bt for that. im hearing jakg's typing with his kb right about now.

64-bit has one big advantage in either XP or Vista (particularly helps Vista though) and that is the ability to go beyond 4GB system RAM. Wth video cards approaching, if not, 1GB that leaves you around a 3GB max on a 32-bit OS. With Vista 64 you can assume 2GB will be eaten rather quickly, so this is a big plus.

I've got Vista ultimate (installed in x64 flavour) but, due to not having a copy of x64 XP and running a dual-boot for some apps, I'm unable to get the best out of it because I can't put the extra RAM in.

Quote from Monkeymike :

64-bit has one big advantage in either XP or Vista (particularly helps Vista though) and that is the ability to go beyond 4GB system RAM. Wth video cards approaching, if not, 1GB that leaves you around a 3GB max on a 32-bit OS. With Vista 64 you can assume 2GB will be eaten rather quickly, so this is a big plus.

I've got Vista ultimate (installed in x64 flavour) but, due to not having a copy of x64 XP and running a dual-boot for some apps, I'm unable to get the best out of it because I can't put the extra RAM in.

Not quite sure how you worked that one out. System ram limit isn't affected by graphics card ram, and furthermore Vista 32bit can support more than 4GB ram anyway so there's not really an issue.

As for people saying you need a fast C2D and a dx10 graphics card etc etc etc, you don't. I have run both Ultimate and Business editions on an Athlon 3200+ Barton, 1GB ram (admittedly could do with 2) and a 6600GT. I noticed no real laggyness.

Quote from shiny_red_cobra :

say... (i.e. Jakg )

Vista looks nice, and it does everything XP does and thats... it tbh, every "new" bit of software has a better free Open Source version, but to be fair so far Vista is very stable - no crashes in my week or so of using it, but for me at least it does nothing XP didn't.

I'm using Home Premium 64-Bit on a Core 2 Quad based system, so it's unsuprising its snappy, i've got 2 GB of RAM (Which seeing as it wants to use 900-odd MB on the desktop without any tweaking means you really want 2 GB too) and an nVidia card - the problems begin!

So far i've been through about 5 different drivers, 3 copies of Vista and about 4 million reboots into safe mode because i had the nerve to change the resolution and it had a fit, but tbh thats nVidia'a drivers and not Vista - If you can get the drivers, i'd recommend 64-bit over 32-bit, so far the only thing i've got no drivers for is my webcam (Go Creative!) which has no 32-bit drivers anyway.

It's not evil or anything, and you will have to upgrade at some point, but for me at least it's stability at the cost of a little speed (which should be fixed in SP1) and more importantly, at the cost of £67

EDIT - PB3200 - 32-Bit can support up to 4 GB of memory, but you ALSO have to include GFX memory, Sound Memory and various PCI stuff in that, giving you roughly 2.75-3.25 GB of RAM. With apps using over 2 GB of RAM, Vista x64 is imo a MUCH better idea

Personally, I'll keep XP as long as I can.

...meh...Vista offers a lot to the less experienced PC user, theres no need to go searching for correct drivers as vista looks after just about everything.

It looks/feels different, and the Media centre compliments the aero theme very well. Different is good imo, im sick to death of bland XP.

Quote from AndroidXP :

Personally, I'll keep XP as long as I can.

And then I'll buy a Mac.

im running vista 32bit, no problems what so ever, just make sure all drivers/games are up to date,

why spend money on xp over vista?

vista has been pretty nice actually. after installing it and a few tweeex i was able to run HL2 (the main screen with 3d stuff going on), LFS playing a spr, firefox with 20 tabs open, a family guy episode running and a few other apps open (all windowed) and i was able to shuffle the windows (3d aero thingy)with no slowdowns on any of the programs...all working perfectly fine on my low-end system (A64 3000+, 1gb, R9800Pro)

Quote from thisnameistaken :

And then I'll buy a Mac.

mac's are great for documents is all, my gf uses one and it don't even got a fan. Its shite for anything else, and paid through the nose for it too.

IMO the mac is a tool for the office and does it well, normal notebooks are too bulky and in a sense just do too damn much(too much goes wrong)...all the extra gingles that come on standard intel/windows notebooks just makes for a bulkier overworked gingle box, if I had bought the gf the same notebook as me I would have no doubt whatsoever that she would be wrecking my head every day to fix stuff on it.

With the mac its different, you plug it in and it just does it in a primative but user friendly way....but dont rely on any sort of excitement from it lol...is just for excel documents and webby surfingIMO blah blah blah...

I don't really understand that "primitive" argument about Macs. My main issue with them is the ridiculously inflated prices on the hardware, but the UI is streets ahead of Windows.

After 15 years of using Windows I have lost patience with it. I thought that eventually we might at least see a Windows release that doesn't bog down in its own cruft after 12 months of operation and require a reformat to get the performance back, but no... Looking at Vista, I think it's obvious that all the things that are wrong with Windows will never get fixed, because they can't be fixed.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

I don't really understand that "primitive" argument about Macs. My main issue with them is the ridiculously inflated prices on the hardware, but the UI is streets ahead of Windows.

It's 'fashion' and all that bs...les be honest they do look/designed sexy, and are aimed more at the gf market. Yup the UI is aimed at the gf market too(for dumbasses lol)

Quote :

After 15 years of using Windows I have lost patience with it. I thought that eventually we might at least see a Windows release that doesn't bog down in its own cruft after 12 months of operation and require a reformat to get the performance back, but no... Looking at Vista, I think it's obvious that all the things that are wrong with Windows will never get fixed, because they can't be fixed.

...yep, I understand that too. What I always done was keep my os on its own partition, and keep avir, ZA, and other apps on partition #2. In every case its much much quicker to replace the windows partition outright(10 mins work). Thats just for piece of mind though, you 'know' everything is in the oem state. Toiling through your system to get it right again could take two days.

Quote from CSU1 :

It's 'fashion' and all that bs...les be honest they do look/designed sexy, and are aimed more at the gf market. Yup the UI is aimed at the gf market too(for dumbasses lol)

I think Apple have a few important features that swing it; spotlight/smart folders, automation, easy shell scripting, *nix filesystem, etc. Just because it looks cutesy that doesn't mean it's a limited OS - only a dumbass would make that assumption.

Quote from CSU1 :

...yep, I understand that too. What I always done was keep my os on its own partition, ... its much much quicker to replace the windows partition outright(10 mins work). Thats just for piece of mind though, you 'know' everything is in the oem state. Toiling through your system to get it right again could take two days.

When I first installed XP I moved the user shell folders to a different partition, to make stuff like that easier. In the end I spent more time setting that up than it would've taken me to just reinstall the OS the normal way, so I never bothered doing it again.

Either way, isn't it just a little preposterous that when you're installing the operating system you're also putting contingency measures in place ready for the day that you need to reinstall the ****ing thing? I am sick of putting up with this kind of crap my computer gives me!

Quote from anik360 :

You need more than 2/3 GB ram and faster C2D cpu and DX10 gfx card is a must.

No you don't?

And if you're wondering why it looks like Vista is using up all of your RAM, that is because that is how it works, it isn't like XP at all in concern of RAM, it works completely different, so it looks like it is using a fair amount of RAM. It is using it, but it also much faster than XP.

Quote from XCNuse :

if you're wondering why it looks like Vista is using up all of your RAM, that is because that is how it works, it isn't like XP at all in concern of RAM, it works completely different, so it looks like it is using a fair amount of RAM.

Go on - what's the difference?

Quote from XCNuse :

It is using it,

So it looks like it's using it because... it is using it? Eh?

Quote from XCNuse :

but it also much faster than XP.

Is that a lie? I don't mean to sound cynical (much) but that sounds like a total lie. Do you have any performance statistics that don't come from studies paid for by Microsoft? From what I've seen, Vista requires more resources to run slower than XP - just like every other iteration of the OS before it.

Quote from pb32000 :

Not quite sure how you worked that one out. System ram limit isn't affected by graphics card ram, and furthermore Vista 32bit can support more than 4GB ram anyway so there's not really an issue.

I have tried 4GB in 32-bit Vista -

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us

That should answer questions you raise - note the description of the 1st 4GB of memory space being used for all system devices as well as the actual system memory, so with an 8800GTX and an x-fi I was down to 2.5GB reported RAM with 4GB fitted.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Go on - what's the difference?

So it looks like it's using it because... it is using it? Eh?

Is that a lie? I don't mean to sound cynical (much) but that sounds like a total lie. Do you have any performance statistics that don't come from studies paid for by Microsoft? From what I've seen, Vista requires more resources to run slower than XP - just like every other iteration of the OS before it.

Google Vista RAM vs XP RAM and I'm sure you'll find all the information your heart desires. I'm not saying anything because I don't full understand how it works, I just said all that I know about it. I want to say it is something like a cache, but it's best you look it up.

I will never use Vista. I've seen it, I used it, and from what I experienced with it I can't stand it. Plus I don't like this "calling home" policy introduced in most MS products nowadays, but that's another topic. In fact, if I wouldn't have XP already installed and got my copy of 2k earlier, I would be using Win 2k instead of XP, because XP already feels really bloated.

One thing I can't get enough of though is looking at their marketing motto: "the wow starts now". It goes right beside "space-age technology" and "state-of-the-art" for kitsch points.


PS:
Every time a new Windows version is out it's the same deal. People will bitch and moan about it, install it when it's got at least one SP released (which is a good idea), then bitch and moan about it until a newer version is released that they can bitch and moan about and say how much they'd rather bitch and moan about the version they currently got.

The current installation of XP I got on my workstation is installed on top of my previous win2k which was installed on my previous NT installation - so it's been going good for a few years now. The only thing that keeps forcing me to "upgrade" to basically do the same things I did to start with is support and requirements from software vendors of programs I use.

PPS:
And to be on-topic: if the new machine is fast and certified and you only really play games on it and get ribbed by mates that probably already have bling-bling Vista (read more about it in my upcoming thesis: "Peer-pressure and the psychological effects on upgrading your computer's OS") - go with the pre-bundled OS for a while. If it busts your balls/you dislike it/whatever you can always reformat it and use the OS disc you had supplied with your previous computer.

Quote from XCNuse :

Google Vista RAM vs XP RAM and I'm sure you'll find all the information your heart desires.

OK, well, I found this, which says Vista is slower than XP. So how did you conclude that it is "much faster than XP", exactly?

I've had zero problems with XP since SP1 but I know I'm going to have to "upgrade" to Vista eventually. But I am concerned about all the bollocks I don't need using up my valuable resources when I'm trying to do something (namely play games) that want them.

That 900Mb RAM on the desktop comment scared the bejesus out of me. I'm running 2Gb RAM but games like STALKER already use everything they can get their hands on, so I don't really want to upgrade if it's going to cause far lower frame rates.

So my question is this - can all the crap be turned off? I have no need for stupid weather updates (I have RL window to see that), I don't use my PC to play or organise movies or photos, I don't need RSS feeds or pretty much any of the sidebar gadgets. I know I won't get rid of the "pretty-but-essentially-pointless" 3D alt-tab system, but I only need basic functionality. I'd love to turn off like 90% of the new features.
Is this possible? And if you can turn them off, does it improve performance at all?

yes you can and yes it does have an effect on overall performance and memory use. read up on a few guides on how to disable unneeded services, tweaking in general and then make your own copy using vlite. i have played stalker on my system with no problems (med-high settings)

for instance vista runs IIRC 2 services by default which are only useful if you use a tablet pc...i have maybe 25 services starting up automatically - the rest can either be disabled entirely or started manually