The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Real quick, please confirm if you know that these programs will work with Vista:
Need for Speed Most Wanted
I think Carbon worked, and it didn't look very different than MW for the 5 min I played it.
AVG
Yes, the 7.5 version works (they're dropping support for the older - 7.1 - free version, 7.5 free should work/get updates after that still ). It uses quite a lot of memory though, ~20MB for the resident shield, so I just manually scan suspect files and then stop the service.
I'm sure many of the games will be compatable as they should have that compatability mode or something, right?
I don't think the compatibility mode will help much - eg. "Runaway 2 the Dream of the Turtle" doesn't work even with one of them on, and will need a patch, despite being a recent DirectX game, IIRC. Most games seem to work fine "out of the box" though, and the recent ones that don't will likely get a patch soon.
robaal on
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra when suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath.
At night, the ice weasels come."
Is there really any need for me to upgrade Vista in the near future? It looks like a graphically enhanced version of Windows XP with a couple of extra features from what I've seen so far.
According to the chart posted a couple of post back..
i could buy the Windows XP / Windows MCE version (like the one newegg has here for $139) and get Vista Ultimate for no additional cost?
I am getting 2 OS's, one of which being Vista Ultimate ($299?) for $139 ??
Something seems wrong ...
You need to use the Vista install as an upgrade to the XP install, or so the license agreement says. I don't know if they bother to back that up with actual restrictions, but they might.
Is there really any need for me to upgrade Vista in the near future? It looks like a graphically enhanced version of Windows XP with a couple of extra features from what I've seen so far.
If you're unsure just wait until you are unhappy with XP. I think people are worn out in this thread of answering this question with detail.
if what I read was true .. that MS is just shipping one box of vista dvds..
One containing 32bit, the other contaning 64bit. .. and both contain every vista version (basic thru ultimate) .. your key determines what is installed.
I thought MS learned the lesson from requiring the original cd / os to be installed before allowing upgrades ... a clean install is a better install
if what I read was true .. that MS is just shipping one box of vista dvds..
One containing 32bit, the other contaning 64bit. .. and both contain every vista version (basic thru ultimate) .. your key determines what is installed.
I thought MS learned the lesson from requiring the original cd / os to be installed before allowing upgrades ... a clean install is a better install
You can upgrade between versions at any time by feeding it your credit card number through a program called AnyTime Upgrade or something.
in speaking with someone, and from what I read .. i can give vista ultiamte a try for a couple weeks before it blows up... and i *do* have a MSDN subscription somewhere...
My new machine should be here early next week.... worlds might need to collide...
I am interested to try it at least .. if only to see if everything i want to play / install will blow up or run craptastically
Most of those reasons are kinda...well, stupid. See, many of those possibilities (besides the the Glass interface & live thumbs) is already available in XP by 3rd-party utilities...and they've done it better than Vista does in most cases.
To take it from start to finish:
1. It's the Interface, Stupid
- It does look better depending on who you're asking, but a lot of the new possibilities are alreadt available in XP by using Stardock's Windowblinds 5. If you don't want alpha-blended window borders, there's also tons of Visual Styles available for free.
2. Flip Over Windows Flip 3D
- This is also available for XP (with even more possibilities than Vista has). One of the better ones would be TopDesk, but there are also freeware alternatives (though most of them don't do it the exact same way).
3. Live Thumbnails
- The "live" part is not available for XP, but if you can make do with static thumbnails when hovering a taskbar buttons there are many different options available. One of them is Visual Task Tips.
4. Boost Performance With ReadyBoost
- The first thing on the list not available for WinXP. I have yet to see any proof that this really improves performance though...
5. Cool Performance Tools
- At the moment, this thing is useless in Vista seeing as it'll warn on just about every single process you add to the system startup. I mean, sure, it is correct in that your added processes will increase startup time but do you really need an application to tell you that?! As for performance monitoring & diagnotstics, there are already to many to count available for XP. Some free, others not.
6. Better Security
- True, absolutely true. However, if you think you will be safe without solutions from 3rd party's you're just fooling yourself. Vista will be safer for the inexperienced user initially, but for many of us this is not a selling point as I can secure my own installation of XP a lot better using selected security solutions than what Vista does by default. In the end, you'll probably want to get 3rd party firewalls, anti-virus & anti-spyware etc. for both OS's, so I don't really see this as a major selling point other than to less inexperienced users.
7. Find Anything Fast With Search
- Really, and I can't do this already in XP? There are such search functions available from many providers, with one of the best being X1 Desktop Search. With Microsoft stripping WinFS away from Vista, their own solution is not better than the ones you'll find for free on XP.
8. Nifty Software Gadgets
- Want this in XP? Yahoo Widgets, Avedesk or Samurize are all very good & free options.
9. Better Wireless Networking
- True, it does have better wlan options, but your alternatives aren't bad with XP either. I'd check out Netstumbler if I were you.
10. Map Your Network
- Nice, but hardly a selling point. I'm sure there are XP utilities that does something like this available as well, though I have never needed something like it so I wouldn't know.
11. Better Graphics With Windows Photo Gallery
- Now who of you would be satisfied with this? When you can get XNView, Ifranview, Faststone Image Viewer etc. for free for both operating systems, applications that are incredibly much more powerful, I don't see this either as a selling point.
12. Become a Director With Windows Movie Maker
- See #11. There are already better alternatives avilable for both OS'es.
13. Better Notebook Support
- Now this I like, although I never thought it was bad in XP either.
14. File Sharing and Syncing
- If you found this to be difficult in XP, you really won't have a easier time with Vista as long as not every client on the network uses Vista as well.
15. Protect Your Kids With Parental Controls
- Good or bad, you decide. Will only really work with new games though, as none of the old ones include any information on the disc about ratings etc.
---
You might get the impression that I'm not really interested in Vista, but you would be wrong. I will most certainly upgrade, but not for some time. Gaming performance in Vista is terrible compared to XP at the moment, software support is lacking (several of my frequently used apps does not work correctly, or at all, in Vista) + I'm not to sure if I want to use a OS from Microsoft until they've released a service pack... I did with 95, 98, 2000 & XP, and while I'll probably end up doing the same thing again, none of the previously mentioned OS'es felt complete until at least SP1.
Dírhael on
0
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited January 2007
I wanna switch to Vista, but I have a 64-bit CPU (dual-core, too) and I want the one that uses all it's features.
I have 2 Dell OEM copies of Windows XP MCE 2005 with legit keys. Could I upgrade those to Vista Ultimate? And could I do fresh installs on formatted drives without installing MCE?
the interface improvements go beyond simply making borders pretty
I wish people would actually spend some time with Vista before passing the interface off as some windowblinds re-skin
I've been using Vista on and off since beta 1, and while what you say is true, a lot of the changes were most definitely *not* for the better. Windows Explorer is still pretty much worthless as a file manager if you want to do more than browse folders. The Internet Explorer interface is a disaster from a usability standpoint. The Control Panel is still as disorganized as ever, and perhaps even more so than XP. They haven't managed to create a unified "feel" other than confusion throughout most of the various bundled applications either.
In fact, the only positive points about the interface is in fact the new window borders (depending on who you ask), the start menu and finally the clickable explorer breadcrums.
There are a many positive things about Vista, but the interface "enhancements" does not really go much further than looks.
the interface improvements go beyond simply making borders pretty
I wish people would actually spend some time with Vista before passing the interface off as some windowblinds re-skin
I've been using Vista on and off since beta 1, and while what you say is true, a lot of the changes were most definitely *not* for the better. Windows Explorer is still pretty much worthless as a file manager if you want to do more than browse folders. The Internet Explorer interface is a disaster from a usability standpoint. The Control Panel is still as disorganized as ever, and perhaps even more so than XP. They haven't managed to create a unified "feel" other than confusion throughout most of the various bundled applications either.
In fact, the only positive points about the interface is in fact the new window borders (depending on who you ask), the start menu and finally the clickable explorer breadcrums.
There are a many positive things about Vista, but the interface "enhancements" does not really go much further than looks.
yep depends on who you ask... you don't like the changes obviously
maybe 'enhancements' is subjective, but it's not a re-skin
What's wrong with explorer? I like how it auto-scrolls the folder list. That's rad.
I've used Mac OS X, which I like, and I find Vista slightly less awkward. Though, they both have their kinks.
IE is fine except for the placement of the refresh button (yeah, I know I should use F5 or whatever), but that's it. The tabbed browsing is sweet. I don't know if I'll go back to Firefox.
If anyone has any Qs about Vista or wants screenshots of anything, just ask.
I have one question about Vista I haven't been able to find out. Using Windows XP I've noticed, depending on the amount of pictures on the folder, a tendency to almost freeze when switching to thumbnails view, or when arranging many pictures by dimensions. Does Vista still do this? If yes, is it better or worse than XP?
the interface improvements go beyond simply making borders pretty
I wish people would actually spend some time with Vista before passing the interface off as some windowblinds re-skin
I've been using Vista on and off since beta 1, and while what you say is true, a lot of the changes were most definitely *not* for the better. Windows Explorer is still pretty much worthless as a file manager if you want to do more than browse folders. The Internet Explorer interface is a disaster from a usability standpoint. The Control Panel is still as disorganized as ever, and perhaps even more so than XP. They haven't managed to create a unified "feel" other than confusion throughout most of the various bundled applications either.
In fact, the only positive points about the interface is in fact the new window borders (depending on who you ask), the start menu and finally the clickable explorer breadcrums.
There are a many positive things about Vista, but the interface "enhancements" does not really go much further than looks.
yep depends on who you ask... you don't like the changes obviously
maybe 'enhancements' is subjective, but it's not a re-skin
There are some changes I do like, but my main problem with Vista and some other recent Microsoft products is that they for some reason can't seem to create a unified "feel" in their applications. It's quite frustrating that one of the worst offenders when it comes to breaking basic Windows conventions, for better or worse, is Microsoft themselves. You get the feeling that each of their applications is developed by entirely different teams, which have never talked with each other. Some of the applications by themselves are nicely enough designed, but what I don't like is when most of them act, behave & look differently. When some of them also sacrifices functionality for looks I find it hard not to be somewhat frustrated.
It's nice that they're willing to experiment, but not when it is at the expense of their end users.
the interface improvements go beyond simply making borders pretty
I wish people would actually spend some time with Vista before passing the interface off as some windowblinds re-skin
I've been using Vista on and off since beta 1, and while what you say is true, a lot of the changes were most definitely *not* for the better. Windows Explorer is still pretty much worthless as a file manager if you want to do more than browse folders. The Internet Explorer interface is a disaster from a usability standpoint. The Control Panel is still as disorganized as ever, and perhaps even more so than XP. They haven't managed to create a unified "feel" other than confusion throughout most of the various bundled applications either.
In fact, the only positive points about the interface is in fact the new window borders (depending on who you ask), the start menu and finally the clickable explorer breadcrums.
There are a many positive things about Vista, but the interface "enhancements" does not really go much further than looks.
yep depends on who you ask... you don't like the changes obviously
maybe 'enhancements' is subjective, but it's not a re-skin
There are some changes I do like, but my main problem with Vista and some other recent Microsoft products is that they for some reason can't seem to create a unified "feel" in their applications. It's quite frustrating that one of the worst offenders when it comes to breaking basic Windows conventions, for better or worse, is Microsoft themselves. You get the feeling that each of their applications is developed by entirely different teams, which have never talked with each other. Some of the applications by themselves are nicely enough designed, but what I don't like is when most of them act, behave & look differently. When some of them also sacrifices functionality for looks I find it hard not to be somewhat frustrated.
It's nice that they're willing to experiment, but not when it is at the expense of their end users.
what you're describing I... I just don't understand why you're saying that... I mean it feels more unified than ever to me
just odd
maybe I've been using it too long... I've been using RC1 exclusively since it came out... installed it right over XP in a leap of faith
I have one question about Vista I haven't been able to find out. Using Windows XP I've noticed, depending on the amount of pictures on the folder, a tendency to almost freeze when switching to thumbnails view, or when arranging many pictures by dimensions. Does Vista still do this? If yes, is it better or worse than XP?
Yeah, I had one folder full of pictures with a ton of subfolders, also full of pictures, and in XP it would totally just stop for awhile until all the thumbs loaded. Unfortunately, I cleaned that up awhile ago, so I can't really say if Vista still does it. It does seem to load photos better in general, though.
Is there a way to re-partition your hard drive and still keep your files or am I pretty much screwed on that front? Someone apparently thought a paltry 10GB was plenty for the Windows partition.
Does Firefox still work in Vista?
I tried resizing my Linux partition to allow 20 gigs for Vista, but the installer kept failing each time. Don't know if it was because there was an ext3 partition there, or the fact that the installer wants the whole drive to itself.
The Vista installer can't resize an ext3 partition, of course. Why would Microsoft make their products compatable with competition?
The gParted Live CD should be the answer to your problems. And it's free.
On the x86_64 front: Um. 2GB of RAM is almost standard for a new gaming rig these days. That means that 4 will be in three or so years. Assuming we'll be waiting five years for a new release of Windows, won't we need a 64-bit OS by then? Because Win32 can't address more than three gigs of RAM (the extra gig that should be there is used as virtual address space).
The point is moot. Right now, 32-bit without a doubt trounces 64-bit. When 64-bit becomes useful, Vista includes both versions on the same dvd at no extra cost so you can reinstall with no worries.
You will have to pay the money for the 64bit version though.
Is anyone here running XP 64bit. I'm going to be getting Vista sometime this year, hopefully soon, and I use XP 64bit and have had no problems, except for having to switch to a different free antivirus program. Is Vista 64 going to less compatible then XP 64? If not I'm surely going for Vista 64-bit, although I most likely will anyway, but I've had nothing but smooth sailing with XP 64bit.
I don't think you pay extra money. At least, Paul Thurrott doesn't mention any fee here. He did say that 32-bit and 64-bit are on separate dvds but in the same box. Buy one, get both, choose which one you want to install.
My free copy of vista came on monday, it says 32 on the package, and theres 1 dvd inside, I think I got hosed.
My free copy of vista came on monday, it says 32 on the package, and theres 1 dvd inside, I think I got hosed.
Over at Channel9 someone mentioned you'd be able to request a 64 bit DVD shortly. Your key will work for both versions, so you could always borrow someone else's DVD and install off of that, or acquire a copy some other way. I'm a little disappointed they didn't ship both DVDs, but then again, it was free.
Fats on
0
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products, Transition Teamregular
edited January 2007
Been running vista for a day or so here... it's kicking ass.
intel DG965 Mobo w/ an E6600 2.4 GHz core 2 Duo, 2GB 800MHZ DDR2 4-4-4-12 memory, Turtle Beach Montego DDL, 750GB HDD, Radeon x800xl (the weakest link in my setup, actually)... and it responds smoother, better, and more elegantly than XP ever did.
Sooo... for those of your running Vista, what's your performance number?
if what I read was true .. that MS is just shipping one box of vista dvds..
One containing 32bit, the other contaning 64bit. .. and both contain every vista version (basic thru ultimate) .. your key determines what is installed.
I thought MS learned the lesson from requiring the original cd / os to be installed before allowing upgrades ... a clean install is a better install
You don't have to have the OS installed to install Vista with the upgrade version. You only need the old OS cd to verify you own XP while installing Vista. You can do a fresh install with the upgrade version.
6. Better Security
- True, absolutely true. However, if you think you will be safe without solutions from 3rd party's you're just fooling yourself. Vista will be safer for the inexperienced user initially, but for many of us this is not a selling point as I can secure my own installation of XP a lot better using selected security solutions than what Vista does by default. In the end, you'll probably want to get 3rd party firewalls, anti-virus & anti-spyware etc. for both OS's, so I don't really see this as a major selling point other than to less inexperienced users.
There are a few security features on Vista that make it superior to XP.
Windows BitLocker Drive Encryption
Kernel Patch Protection
Address Space Layout Randomizer
That last one is very appealing to me, as it will make buffer overrun viruses much less reliable. As a programmer that would deter me from writing a buffer overrun virus and focus on something else, although it will still allow the virus to execute correctly 1/256 times, so if you get it on enough machines, you will still have a fair number of infections.
Cronus on
"Read twice, post once. It's almost like 'measure twice, cut once' only with reading." - MetaverseNomad
6. Better Security
- True, absolutely true. However, if you think you will be safe without solutions from 3rd party's you're just fooling yourself. Vista will be safer for the inexperienced user initially, but for many of us this is not a selling point as I can secure my own installation of XP a lot better using selected security solutions than what Vista does by default. In the end, you'll probably want to get 3rd party firewalls, anti-virus & anti-spyware etc. for both OS's, so I don't really see this as a major selling point other than to less inexperienced users.
There are a few security features on Vista that make it superior to XP.
Windows BitLocker Drive Encryption
Kernel Patch Protection
Address Space Layout Randomizer
That last one is very appealing to me, as it will make buffer overrun viruses much less reliable. As a programmer that would deter me from writing a buffer overrun virus and focus on something else, although it will still allow the virus to execute correctly 1/256 times, so if you get it on enough machines, you will still have a fair number of infections.
Oh absolutely, I don't doubt that. My point was more that it would be crazy to not use security solutions from a 3rd party rather than rely entirely on the built-in features only. Because of this, it wouldn't really matter if you run XP or Vista seeing as you can make both as secure as you wish (though, with the exact same software solutions, Vista should have the edge depending on how secure MS managed to write their code).
Kernel Patch Protection
Address Space Layout Randomizer
As far as I know, these are only available on the x64 versions. Don't ask me why.
If I remeber correctly it was because of some backward compatibility built into the 32bit version that they couldn't also have those security features. I don't think I read exactly what it was. I'm sure you could find it on Microsoft's site, but I'm sure it's ridiculously hard to find, as with most MS tech docs.
Cronus on
"Read twice, post once. It's almost like 'measure twice, cut once' only with reading." - MetaverseNomad
Well, the registry keeps getting corrupt for some damned reason. I'm starting to think, why try anymore? I might just install Ubuntu on the drive again.
Anybody getting this? Why the hell is the registry so unstable?
victor_c26 on
It's been so long since I've posted here, I've removed my signature since most of what I had here were broken links. Shows over, you can carry on to the next post.
Ultimate will come with both platforms on DVD. Home Basic, Premium, and Business will need to order 64 bit on DVD separately, or 32 bit on CD.
The number is 800.360.7561. Media usually costs about twenty-seven bucks for cost, shipping, handling, and all that.
What's your source? I've only read that all versions include both, and Paul Thurrott (in the quote I posted earlier) says otherwise.
Here it is again:
[quote=Paul Thurrott]Unlike XP x64, you don't need to buy a x64-specific versions of Vista. Instead, all Windows Vista editions, except for Vista Starter, will come with both 32-bit (x86) and 64-bit (x64) versions in the box, on separate DVDs. This includes the Home Basic (and Home Basic N), Home Premium, Business (and Business N), Enterprise, and Ultimate editions of Windows Vista.[/quote]
Posts
Yes, the 7.5 version works (they're dropping support for the older - 7.1 - free version, 7.5 free should work/get updates after that still ). It uses quite a lot of memory though, ~20MB for the resident shield, so I just manually scan suspect files and then stop the service.
I don't think the compatibility mode will help much - eg. "Runaway 2 the Dream of the Turtle" doesn't work even with one of them on, and will need a patch, despite being a recent DirectX game, IIRC. Most games seem to work fine "out of the box" though, and the recent ones that don't will likely get a patch soon.
At night, the ice weasels come."
According to the chart posted a couple of post back..
i could buy the Windows XP / Windows MCE version (like the one newegg has here for $139) and get Vista Ultimate for no additional cost?
I am getting 2 OS's, one of which being Vista Ultimate ($299?) for $139 ??
Something seems wrong ...
Librarians harbor a terrible secret. Find it.
You need to use the Vista install as an upgrade to the XP install, or so the license agreement says. I don't know if they bother to back that up with actual restrictions, but they might.
One containing 32bit, the other contaning 64bit. .. and both contain every vista version (basic thru ultimate) .. your key determines what is installed.
I thought MS learned the lesson from requiring the original cd / os to be installed before allowing upgrades ... a clean install is a better install
Librarians harbor a terrible secret. Find it.
You can upgrade between versions at any time by feeding it your credit card number through a program called AnyTime Upgrade or something.
15 Reasons to Adopt Vista
Kind of interesting I guess
My new machine should be here early next week.... worlds might need to collide...
I am interested to try it at least .. if only to see if everything i want to play / install will blow up or run craptastically
Librarians harbor a terrible secret. Find it.
Most of those reasons are kinda...well, stupid. See, many of those possibilities (besides the the Glass interface & live thumbs) is already available in XP by 3rd-party utilities...and they've done it better than Vista does in most cases.
To take it from start to finish:
1. It's the Interface, Stupid
- It does look better depending on who you're asking, but a lot of the new possibilities are alreadt available in XP by using Stardock's Windowblinds 5. If you don't want alpha-blended window borders, there's also tons of Visual Styles available for free.
2. Flip Over Windows Flip 3D
- This is also available for XP (with even more possibilities than Vista has). One of the better ones would be TopDesk, but there are also freeware alternatives (though most of them don't do it the exact same way).
3. Live Thumbnails
- The "live" part is not available for XP, but if you can make do with static thumbnails when hovering a taskbar buttons there are many different options available. One of them is Visual Task Tips.
4. Boost Performance With ReadyBoost
- The first thing on the list not available for WinXP. I have yet to see any proof that this really improves performance though...
5. Cool Performance Tools
- At the moment, this thing is useless in Vista seeing as it'll warn on just about every single process you add to the system startup. I mean, sure, it is correct in that your added processes will increase startup time but do you really need an application to tell you that?! As for performance monitoring & diagnotstics, there are already to many to count available for XP. Some free, others not.
6. Better Security
- True, absolutely true. However, if you think you will be safe without solutions from 3rd party's you're just fooling yourself. Vista will be safer for the inexperienced user initially, but for many of us this is not a selling point as I can secure my own installation of XP a lot better using selected security solutions than what Vista does by default. In the end, you'll probably want to get 3rd party firewalls, anti-virus & anti-spyware etc. for both OS's, so I don't really see this as a major selling point other than to less inexperienced users.
7. Find Anything Fast With Search
- Really, and I can't do this already in XP? There are such search functions available from many providers, with one of the best being X1 Desktop Search. With Microsoft stripping WinFS away from Vista, their own solution is not better than the ones you'll find for free on XP.
8. Nifty Software Gadgets
- Want this in XP? Yahoo Widgets, Avedesk or Samurize are all very good & free options.
9. Better Wireless Networking
- True, it does have better wlan options, but your alternatives aren't bad with XP either. I'd check out Netstumbler if I were you.
10. Map Your Network
- Nice, but hardly a selling point. I'm sure there are XP utilities that does something like this available as well, though I have never needed something like it so I wouldn't know.
11. Better Graphics With Windows Photo Gallery
- Now who of you would be satisfied with this? When you can get XNView, Ifranview, Faststone Image Viewer etc. for free for both operating systems, applications that are incredibly much more powerful, I don't see this either as a selling point.
12. Become a Director With Windows Movie Maker
- See #11. There are already better alternatives avilable for both OS'es.
13. Better Notebook Support
- Now this I like, although I never thought it was bad in XP either.
14. File Sharing and Syncing
- If you found this to be difficult in XP, you really won't have a easier time with Vista as long as not every client on the network uses Vista as well.
15. Protect Your Kids With Parental Controls
- Good or bad, you decide. Will only really work with new games though, as none of the old ones include any information on the disc about ratings etc.
---
You might get the impression that I'm not really interested in Vista, but you would be wrong. I will most certainly upgrade, but not for some time. Gaming performance in Vista is terrible compared to XP at the moment, software support is lacking (several of my frequently used apps does not work correctly, or at all, in Vista) + I'm not to sure if I want to use a OS from Microsoft until they've released a service pack... I did with 95, 98, 2000 & XP, and while I'll probably end up doing the same thing again, none of the previously mentioned OS'es felt complete until at least SP1.
But some of my hardware might not work in 64-bit.
What should I do?
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
But you saying that makes me think you should use 32 bit. The advantages of 64 bit are rather minimal compared to the downsides at this point.
On a separate note:
One of you said you got AVG running, but mine always crashes, I'm sure it 7.5. I wonder what's up.
I wish people would actually spend some time with Vista before passing the interface off as some windowblinds re-skin
I've been using Vista on and off since beta 1, and while what you say is true, a lot of the changes were most definitely *not* for the better. Windows Explorer is still pretty much worthless as a file manager if you want to do more than browse folders. The Internet Explorer interface is a disaster from a usability standpoint. The Control Panel is still as disorganized as ever, and perhaps even more so than XP. They haven't managed to create a unified "feel" other than confusion throughout most of the various bundled applications either.
In fact, the only positive points about the interface is in fact the new window borders (depending on who you ask), the start menu and finally the clickable explorer breadcrums.
There are a many positive things about Vista, but the interface "enhancements" does not really go much further than looks.
maybe 'enhancements' is subjective, but it's not a re-skin
I've used Mac OS X, which I like, and I find Vista slightly less awkward. Though, they both have their kinks.
IE is fine except for the placement of the refresh button (yeah, I know I should use F5 or whatever), but that's it. The tabbed browsing is sweet. I don't know if I'll go back to Firefox.
If anyone has any Qs about Vista or wants screenshots of anything, just ask.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
What's so bad about Explorer? I've always found it to work fine.
There are some changes I do like, but my main problem with Vista and some other recent Microsoft products is that they for some reason can't seem to create a unified "feel" in their applications. It's quite frustrating that one of the worst offenders when it comes to breaking basic Windows conventions, for better or worse, is Microsoft themselves. You get the feeling that each of their applications is developed by entirely different teams, which have never talked with each other. Some of the applications by themselves are nicely enough designed, but what I don't like is when most of them act, behave & look differently. When some of them also sacrifices functionality for looks I find it hard not to be somewhat frustrated.
It's nice that they're willing to experiment, but not when it is at the expense of their end users.
just odd
maybe I've been using it too long... I've been using RC1 exclusively since it came out... installed it right over XP in a leap of faith
Yeah, I had one folder full of pictures with a ton of subfolders, also full of pictures, and in XP it would totally just stop for awhile until all the thumbs loaded. Unfortunately, I cleaned that up awhile ago, so I can't really say if Vista still does it. It does seem to load photos better in general, though.
My free copy of vista came on monday, it says 32 on the package, and theres 1 dvd inside, I think I got hosed.
Over at Channel9 someone mentioned you'd be able to request a 64 bit DVD shortly. Your key will work for both versions, so you could always borrow someone else's DVD and install off of that, or acquire a copy some other way. I'm a little disappointed they didn't ship both DVDs, but then again, it was free.
intel DG965 Mobo w/ an E6600 2.4 GHz core 2 Duo, 2GB 800MHZ DDR2 4-4-4-12 memory, Turtle Beach Montego DDL, 750GB HDD, Radeon x800xl (the weakest link in my setup, actually)... and it responds smoother, better, and more elegantly than XP ever did.
Sooo... for those of your running Vista, what's your performance number?
I'm at 4.9 (due to the video)
Processor: 5.3
Memory: 5.6
Graphics: 5.9
Gaming Graphics: 4.9
Primary Hard Disc: 5.3
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
P M 1.8GHz (3.8), 1GB RAM (4.4), GeForce 6800 Go (Graphics 5.9/Gaming Graphics 4.7), 100GB HDD (4.5)
edit: processor 5.1
Memory 5.6
Graphics 5.9
Gaming Graphics 5.8
Primary Hard Disk 5.7
There are a few security features on Vista that make it superior to XP.
Windows BitLocker Drive Encryption
Kernel Patch Protection
Address Space Layout Randomizer
That last one is very appealing to me, as it will make buffer overrun viruses much less reliable. As a programmer that would deter me from writing a buffer overrun virus and focus on something else, although it will still allow the virus to execute correctly 1/256 times, so if you get it on enough machines, you will still have a fair number of infections.
"Read twice, post once. It's almost like 'measure twice, cut once' only with reading." - MetaverseNomad
Oh absolutely, I don't doubt that. My point was more that it would be crazy to not use security solutions from a 3rd party rather than rely entirely on the built-in features only. Because of this, it wouldn't really matter if you run XP or Vista seeing as you can make both as secure as you wish (though, with the exact same software solutions, Vista should have the edge depending on how secure MS managed to write their code).
As far as I know, these are only available on the x64 versions. Don't ask me why.
If I remeber correctly it was because of some backward compatibility built into the 32bit version that they couldn't also have those security features. I don't think I read exactly what it was. I'm sure you could find it on Microsoft's site, but I'm sure it's ridiculously hard to find, as with most MS tech docs.
"Read twice, post once. It's almost like 'measure twice, cut once' only with reading." - MetaverseNomad
The number is 800.360.7561. Media usually costs about twenty-seven bucks for cost, shipping, handling, and all that.
Anybody getting this? Why the hell is the registry so unstable?
Here it is again:
[quote=Paul Thurrott]Unlike XP x64, you don't need to buy a x64-specific versions of Vista. Instead, all Windows Vista editions, except for Vista Starter, will come with both 32-bit (x86) and 64-bit (x64) versions in the box, on separate DVDs. This includes the Home Basic (and Home Basic N), Home Premium, Business (and Business N), Enterprise, and Ultimate editions of Windows Vista.[/quote]