Topic: Poll: Will you choose to get Windows Vista?

[Age]

When get a new machine I will or wait untill windows 7 is out.What will we al do when it is only Vista like XP is now to play some of our old favourite games?

[Pestalence_XC]

Bought a new machine nearly a year ago. It was actually cheaper with Vista installed than XP, so I bought the Vista installed one. Big mistake. Vista is a resource hog.

Incorrect. Vista requires more ram to operate, however it has many new feature sets that use those resources. Vista will utilize existing Ram before it utilizes the paging file. it is the opposite of XP. This means quicker response of your programs. Also, if you enable Ready Boost, it will utilize that to hold some active memory instead of paging file.. which again helps speed up the system.

Vista is clearly defined to be able to run on 512 mb memory, however it is recommended to run 2 Gb.. Most people are upping to 4 Gb since it is so cheap.. 4 Gb @800 Mhz FSB with a gaming latency of 4-4-4-12 by Patriot Extreme is $99 at Tiger Direct now.

Starting your system up, with 4 Gb installed, the OS will use 1.06 GB of ram to keep the prefetch active to fast launch your software. however the CPU is only utilizing about 20% for startup. when idling it is about 1 to 2 % where XP is 4 to 5 %.

To lower resource usage, turn off features like Active Desktop, Windows Areo, and so forth.. Resources will go below XP usage when you do this.. Mainly the resources are being used by the eyecandy, not the system kernel.. as such it is actually more efficient than XP.

the OS may be more demanding, but it is hardly a resource hog. It adjusts paging file size in accordance to your Ram.

Vista had memory leaks and you needed hotfixes for certain hardware on board.. most of this is remedied in Service Pack 1.

It has nearly broken or has broken multiplayer for a number of games that I play, OP and Star Trek:Legacy, which I am sure is true of a number of games.

Information about Vista has been public since about 6 months before the release of Vista.. Vista does not support DirectX 8 or older software and DirectX 10 has been revamped with newer networking code. most people should expect that older software would not work correctly, just like SFC OP did not work correctly in XP before SP 1. the problem with SFC in Vista is because the game was written under DirectX 8, 7 or 6 depending on which SFC game you have.. those versions are not supported under Direct X 10.. However Dual booting to XP remidies this since XP was designed under DirectX 7 and 8 which is what makes XP compatible with SFC OP. If XP was built under DirectX 9.0c, then SFC OP would not be supported and most probably networking issues would have occurred then. Vista was built under DirectX 9.0c and DirectX 10.0 concurrently. As such there is no support for DirectX 8 or older as listed on the DirectX web site prior to the release of XP.

Vista requires programmers to use proper programming standards with todays technology instead of writing programs in software dated back to 1998.

If your games are broken in Vista, Check the manufacturer of the game for a fix, if the company no longer exists or refuses to support the software, then just buy a copy of XP and dual boot your system.. Problem solved.. you have Vista for the new software coming out, and XP for legacy programs.

Do not get Vista unless you intend to play games with DX10 features. There is no point. Vista was supposed to be the gaming-friendly OS especially with the Games for Windows initiative and Windows Live as a parallel to XBox Live, neither of which has come to anything. Microsoft totally dropped the ball on this stuff and on the OS in general.

Vista will operate any game that was created in Visual C++ 2005 or newer and encoded under DirectX 9.0c without a problem. Networking can be adjusted easily by the program creator. Again if they refuse, Dual boot with XP.

By the way, downgrading to Windows XP is not an option for most people who will be getting Vista, as they will likely be getting it from a new PC purchase. Vista Home Basic and Premium cannot do a downgrade, only Ultimate and Business users. Further, you need an OEM install disk of XP (which may be difficult to obtain) to do the downgrade, which is merely using your Vista key to license the XP install.

This is incorrect as well. Why would you want to down grade when you can just Dual boot. If you have an XP disk either retail or system builders OEM (not like Gateway OEM), then you can install XP into a partition of the HDD and after you follow the guide I provided, just Activate it.

If you are trying to Downgrade a prebuilt system, all you have to do is put in the XP disk, again retail or System Builders OEM versions, and just follow the instructions to erase the Vista information and install XP, however your problem will come by way of device drivers since XP does not contain the drivers for Vista based hardware.

So, the easiest way is to dual boot and you can use Vista to search the web for XP based drivers and save them to disk and then install them after the first boot of XP. Your system will be working just fine after that and all you need to do is get the XP updates.. make sure to burn the updates and newer device drivers to DVD so you can have them for the future.

As far as I am concerned, if you want to do gaming and don't have thousands to spend to get an experience that you can't get with a console, then you might as well get a console. This keeping up with the Jones crap with PC games is getting tired. The new machine I bought is essentially already obsolete, with Quad core and DX10 being the new gaming standard.

I can't think of any reason for Vista except DX10 and if you don't have the cash to build a very high end system and keep upgrading it to be on the bleeding edge, you might as well not even bother.

Oh, and by the by, I can't even get Vista SP1 because I have hardware components and drivers that are not compatible with it, despite the machine having the tag of being "Designed for Windows Vista" and not merely "Vista Capable". Thanks MS and Dell.

Then instead of trying to download the Vista SP 1 from Windows Update, get the Full Installer from Microsoft.com, or you can search torrent sites for Vista Service Pack 1 RTM.. it is readily available for everyone and will install regardless of your hardware components.. this was posted in the Vista Service Pack 1 Whitepaper (readme file) that has been out since Aug. 2007. Microsoft provided a way for you to update your system without having to buy new hardware.. The reason that the Service Pack was designed the way it is is to make the end user contact the computer manufacturer and ask them why their vista machine is using substandard parts that are suppose to be Vista compliant, but are infact refurbished XP system parts.

That is the problem with buying a system from places like Gateway or Dell.. It is far easier and cheaper to build your own computer.

[_Rondo_GE The OutLaw]

Heh.

I own 5 computers.

Three desktops and two laptops.

My newest has Vista.  (laptop).

Ummm....I can wait no need to ugrade after what I have seen.

[Lepton]

Pesty, it seems that you have had the chip implanted.  Your interpretation of the facts, what you present, and how you present it tell me that you have a grasp of the propaganda as supported by selected Microsoft facts, but little grasp of the reality of people's experience of Vista.  You have absolutely no point of reference as to the limitations of the OS considering the hardware that you are running it on.  I think the meandering course that you have set to support this OS speaks for itself as to the validity of your remarks.

[knightstorm]

Vista is clearly defined to be able to run on 512 mb memory, however it is recommended to run 2 Gb.. Most people are upping to 4 Gb since it is so cheap.. 4 Gb @800 Mhz FSB with a gaming latency of 4-4-4-12 by Patriot Extreme is $99 at Tiger Direct now.

incorrect.  This is actually where that whole vista ready controversy started.  The only version of vista that will run on 512 mb is Windows Vista Home basic which apparently was even less satisfactory than the other editions.

[Pestalence_XC]

Vista is clearly defined to be able to run on 512 mb memory, however it is recommended to run 2 Gb.. Most people are upping to 4 Gb since it is so cheap.. 4 Gb @800 Mhz FSB with a gaming latency of 4-4-4-12 by Patriot Extreme is $99 at Tiger Direct now.

incorrect. This is actually where that whole vista ready controversy started. The only version of vista that will run on 512 mb is Windows Vista Home basic which apparently was even less satisfactory than the other editions.

You sir, are incorrect.. if you read the entire statement, all versions of Vista have a minimum requirement of 512 Mb memory.

In Vista Home Basic, you do not have the Desktop Window Manager Session Manager service.. this is what enhances your desktop in other Vista versions..

If you turn this service off, your desktop will basically default to Vista Home Basic desktop, which many games upon launch will make it do anyways and then reverts back when game closes..

If you disable the service along with the Media Center services in Services.msc, your system requirements are exactly the same as Vista Home Basic..

However people do not know how to turn those services off and their system crawls like a slug... But the Vista OS in general has a minimum of 512 MB operating memory..

My neighbor bought a Gateway running Vista Home Premium 32 bit with 512 MB system memory.. it started up just fine, but could barely run any applications.. turning off those services sped her machine up and it worked great.. however she asked me to install some memory on her system.. and she is chugging right along with 2 Gb and the services turned back on..

Vista Minimum specifications (which means running Vista with Minimum features enabled) is 512 mb memory.. it does not matter which version of Vista it is.

[Pestalence_XC]

Pesty, it seems that you have had the chip implanted. Your interpretation of the facts, what you present, and how you present it tell me that you have a grasp of the propaganda as supported by selected Microsoft facts, but little grasp of the reality of people's experience of Vista. You have absolutely no point of reference as to the limitations of the OS considering the hardware that you are running it on. I think the meandering course that you have set to support this OS speaks for itself as to the validity of your remarks.

My interpretation of the facts comes with over 200 hours logged into Vista and working with the OS itself. This includes using applications such as Program Compatibility Analyzer  to change Vista's settings on a program by program basis, testing all my software for incompatibilities or errors, reading technet and MSDN journals, Beta Testing Microsoft Vista SP1 RC 1, RC 2 and RC 2 refresh.. working with individual programs finding work arounds because of freelanced programming codes instead of developers using programming strandards, which is the #1 cause of broken programs in Vista.. Developing fixes for my software if at all possible..

Because I love SFC, and because I intend to program for SFC OP, I have to have my system Dual Boot with XP, which fixes problems with incompatible software in Vista.. the rest of my software works better running under Vista than it does in XP for compatible software.

How much testing and research have you done Lepton?

Or did you install a poorly written program and it is now broken in Vista and got mad and now can do nothing but play the blame game on Microsoft..

Microsoft did not write the freelance code of the program you are using, the program developer did that.. Microsoft is just forcing programmers to adhere to programming and software standards and update their utilities to current standards instead of writing programs with software from 1998. And Microsoft is also getting the users involved by having them go back to the developer and make then fix the game using programming standards which they should have done in the first place..

SFC OP is a prime example of Freelanced coding instead of using standards.. If Taldren were still around, i am sure that they would have patched the game to where D2 networking would operate correctly.. but since they are gone, then that is a moot point.. So the best that can happen is that the community work together and attempt to fix OP on Vista ourselves.. the error was not on Microsoft's end.. it is just poor network code by Taldren, which should be reworked.. Unfortunately the Source Code for OP is not available for that game and all we can do now is work together and find a work around to fix the game.. which I have been doing since December if you check my posts..

Alternatively, I have posted a method for Vista Users to get XP on their system so that they can play on the D2 without any problems.

What have you done to help the community or those that already have vista.. I mean except complain..

I support out community, I also support keeping a computer completely updated.. we now have an OS that requires standards and developers are showing us just how bad their code really is in this new OS.. and it is making them go back to the books.. Why do you think it takes so long for a Vista program only to come out.. because the code has to have a standard for programming and developers have to break the habit of freelancing their code.

[Lepton]

Pesty, it seems that you have had the chip implanted. Your interpretation of the facts, what you present, and how you present it tell me that you have a grasp of the propaganda as supported by selected Microsoft facts, but little grasp of the reality of people's experience of Vista. You have absolutely no point of reference as to the limitations of the OS considering the hardware that you are running it on. I think the meandering course that you have set to support this OS speaks for itself as to the validity of your remarks.

My interpretation of the facts comes with over 200 hours logged into Vista and working with the OS itself. This includes using applications such as Program Compatibility Analyzer  to change Vista's settings on a program by program basis, testing all my software for incompatibilities or errors, reading technet and MSDN journals, Beta Testing Microsoft Vista SP1 RC 1, RC 2 and RC 2 refresh.. working with individual programs finding work arounds because of freelanced programming codes instead of developers using programming strandards, which is the #1 cause of broken programs in Vista.. Developing fixes for my software if at all possible..

I think this proves my point quite well.  You could not possibly be objective at this point, having devoted so much of your own time to the OS itself.  As for testing and research, I am an end-user.  It's not incumbent upon any end-user to work out hardware and software compatibilities.  That is the province of the developer.  Now if we, the consumers. have been so often forced to do so because Microsoft can't be bothered to do its jobs, that we now accept this as the standard, then whether or not any consumer has done this or that is irrelevant as this was never the purview of an end-user in the first instance.

Vista is a public relations and technological flop.  While I have had little problems with it for such simple things as web browsing and such, I might have as easily done this in XP or Linux.  Microsoft did not and cannot deliver on all the hype.  Games for Windows Live is stillborn and the number of games that even often the functionality can probably be counted on one hand.  DX10 has been plagued with what I will call a creeping feature set and creeping hardware requirements such that we actually have DX10 cards and DX10.1 cards while there are only a handful of games that even support DX10.  Vista and DX10 are hardware pushers, plain and simple.  Roll out a new set of hardware requirements to make people upgrade.

[Rod ONeal]

It would be better if one OS would run everything. As of now, XPpro (32bit) will run everything for me. That's why I have it. C++6.0, 3DStudioMax5, Ultimate Unwrap3D and SFC which, from what I understand won't run on Vista. I won't be buying a second OS (seems kinda dumb and wasteful) until I have to. Unfortunately, if Vista is the direction it seems that someday I'll have to give M$ my money twice for something that I should only need one of.

[Tulwar]

I've wiped it off my computer completely.  Yes, I downgraded to Windows XP.

From what Pestalence says, the resource problems come from the crap bundled with the machine, and ridiculous "eye candy" Vista supports.  He's probably right.  Unfortunately, you need Pestalence's brains and expertice to strip all the crap off the bargin basement, closeout, piece of junk you bought off the markdown rack.  The selling point on PC's is "cheap."  That worked for me until Vista.

The main reason people buy the Windows family OS's is that people could steal the software they needed to make productive machines.  That made the "thieves" dependent on MS, so they had to pay MS for something, sometime, in one way or another.  Not any more, Vista keeps people honest.  Now, one can't just "borrow" MS Office, they have to spend $150.00 for the lobotomized "Home and Student" or $300.00 for the real thing.  Real quick, that $500.00 bargin basement machine becomes hideously expensive.

The problems installing software are largely there by design.  This isn't "bad code" by anyone.  This is very deliberate.  Software Developers pay MS to block their programs on Vista, so that a newer version that tests the license can be sold, at a discount, of course, to someone who has already paid for the software, once.

What Pesty needs to understand is that few people have one percent of his knowlege.  Most people are bumbling around on their machines.  They buy one at the store, take it out of the package, and expect it to do what their machines have always done.  If they bought a Vista machine, they are in for a rude awakening.

[Nemesis]

I must say that I am surprised.  I was expecting greater acceptance of Vista but it appears to have actually dropped among us. 

[Pestalence_XC]

I must say that I am surprised. I was expecting greater acceptance of Vista but it appears to have actually dropped among us.

Your question reflects on what they are going to get, not what they already have.

There are several people that use to play SFC titles that got Vista machines and it broke SFC, so they moved on from the game.

That is what my efforts are doing now, making a way for Vista to be compatible with SFC titles, and if not, then find an alternative.

I have the alternative in place, and I am continuing to work on Vista Compatibility.

[knightstorm]

I must say that I am surprised. I was expecting greater acceptance of Vista but it appears to have actually dropped among us.

Your question reflects on what they are going to get, not what they already have.

There are several people that use to play SFC titles that got Vista machines and it broke SFC, so they moved on from the game.

That is what my efforts are doing now, making a way for Vista to be compatible with SFC titles, and if not, then find an alternative.

I have the alternative in place, and I am continuing to work on Vista Compatibility.

Having vista on my laptop is why I'm so hostile.  I literally had more BSODs in the first month with vista than I had in 3 years of XP.  That combined with the lack of support for some of my devices, as well as the annoying UAC, really made me despise it.

[Javora]

I plan on moving my copy of WinXP to another machine sometime in the future and waiting until Win 7 and try to skip Vista entirely.  Maybe by that time Microsoft will have all the Vista bugs worked out for Win 7.  Worse case I have to dual boot XP and Vista together.

[Nemesis]

I must say that I am surprised. I was expecting greater acceptance of Vista but it appears to have actually dropped among us.

Your question reflects on what they are going to get, not what they already have.

There are several people that use to play SFC titles that got Vista machines and it broke SFC, so they moved on from the game.

That is what my efforts are doing now, making a way for Vista to be compatible with SFC titles, and if not, then find an alternative.

I have the alternative in place, and I am continuing to work on Vista Compatibility.

The follow up though was to find out who may have changed their minds.  It seems that any mind changing is going more against Vista than for it and I had expected the Microsoft Marketing machine to have a more "positive" effect on peoples opinions than that.  It is possible (as you said) that those who switch to Vista are also leaving the game due to the issues you are attempting so diligently to resolve and thereby removing potential pro Vista votes from polling.   More and more people are maintaining 2 or more machines (I have 4) so that should reduce that effect to some degree.

Your excellent efforts to help people with Vista though is an indicator of why people are resisting it.  It appears that the changes are too great and compatibiliy issues are a factor.  For some it seems that moving to Vista is as much of an effort and plagued by enough issues as it is to move on to the Mac or Linux and that they may as well make the change now rather than be "owned" my Microsoft any longer.  That ignores the DRM and lock in issues that persuaded my not to move on to Windows XP.