The Windows Live service is probably causing that, it can be really gay sometimes. Make sure all the machines have the latest version of Messenger, and the firewall on the XP box is letting it through. If that doesn't work, give it a few days and it might eventually sort itself out.
I am amazed at the number of problems people attribute to Vista because it happened to be the running OS when it happened. If the same issue had occurred anywhere else, it would be correctly assumed to be a Live Messenger problem. But if anything happens out of the ordinary while running Vista, the OS is to blame.
"My dog died when I booted up Vista for the first time. Damn you for releasing this corruption on the world, Microsoft!"
jonxp on
Every time you write parallel fifths, Bach kills a kitten.
3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576 PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
It's like what we'll see when IE8 is released. When websites break, it'll be 8's fault. Not the fact that 7 and earlier were broken and forced nonstandard web design to function, and 8 will finally bring the browser in line with the likes of every other browser out there.
Not everyone can be educated in technology and troubleshooting.
Or, not everyone can be intelligent and not a "anti-M$ lemming" where everything Microsoft does is automatically horrible and wrong and where people apply a ton of backwards, hypocritical standards towards Microsoft.
Any of you guys know when Ad Aware might support Vista64? Its the one bit of software I've come across that supposedly doesn't play nice and support 64 bit (so far AVG and Spybot seem just fine though).
Has anyone else had AVG make ZIP files take forever to extract? At first I thought it was just Visa but I uninstalled AVG and now ZIPs extract 10x faster. Switched to Avast and zips still extract fine.
I like Vista quite a bit, the thing I hate though is Office 2007...why the fuck did they re-arrange everything? I feel like an old-person trying to find common functions in Excel and Word.
Any of you guys know when Ad Aware might support Vista64? Its the one bit of software I've come across that supposedly doesn't play nice and support 64 bit (so far AVG and Spybot seem just fine though).
Not an answer to your question but unless you actually have a problem that Windows Defender didn't catch there's hardly a need for it.
Ad Aware reports a lot of false positives to make you feel like you're solving problems.
I picked up a low-end pre-fab Dell with a fucking Dual Core (AMD Athlon X2) and 1GB of RAM for $400. Back in September. I then spent $25 or so getting a second gig for it.
It was a refurb. But still...hardly "borderline bleeding edge."
EDIT: And it runs Vista like a dream.
Hell, I'm running an Athlon 64 3200+, 1GB DDR, and an nVidia Fx5200 and Vista runs significantly better than XP did on this machine.
I'm freakin' tired of hearing "1GB is not enough RAM for Vista olol!" The hell it's not. I can comfortably run everything I need to on my machine. This includes Visual Studio 2008, Firefox, etc etc. 1GB is not ideal, but Vista will run just fine on it. Of course... anecdotal FTW, but still. I've used 3 machines running 1GB of RAM w/ Vista on them and have not had a problem at all.
I'm actually really curious as to what it is that other people are running/doing that brings Vista to it's knees.
For the most part, yeah, but when one of my sticks went bad and I was stuck with only 1gig while waiting for the RMA, it was starting to chug with just firefox+2 or 3 instances of word.
From the sales front, we offer all of our systems in XP and Vista flavors, It's still pretty much an 80/20 split between what people prefer.
Also, we have an acer laptop that we sell in both XP and Vista, but the XP one is $250 Aussie fun bucks more for the same specs... people still buy it more than the vista.
Honestly, I think Vista was a good release. An evolutionary one that advanced some major under-the-hood components.
I also think MS' position in the market (considering the ultra-hipness of Apple and "street cred" of Linux amongst the tech elite) is such that a good release is a failure. Windows' momentum will carry it, but to truly be appreciated, any OS or Office release needs to be exceptional. Or at least perceived as such.
Because of that, the usual panning of an MS OS release guided the mass market's general opinion. For reference... search the web for old XP critiques. It was hated as much, or more, than Vista. No one, other than "geeks" (or whatever) listened then. This time, the mass media jumped on the word of tech blogs, as it was sensational. Goliath faltered. The tech-David's were battling back! Like a great sports movie.
None of that's unfair, though. You win 90+% market share and the bar is raised. A lot. It may be ignorant and subjective, but it's still not unfair.
Honestly, I think Vista was a good release. An evolutionary one that advanced some major under-the-hood components.
Exactly, it has some of the biggest changes in Windows since probably 95. So many subsystems (Networking, audio, printing, etc) are completely new, a new codebase, a new GUI, a new kernel, a new driver model, a completely new image based setup (Which cost install times by a third, if not more -- how can people gloss over such a big improvement?), new agnostics, monitoring and reporting, new imaging framework, new power management, new I/O technology (SuperFetch, Readyboost, ReadyDrive, and other stuff which doesn't have a flash marketing name), new parental controls, etc.
Hell, what was a bigger jump? 3.1 to 95? And another question, just what in Vista wasn't changed? Oh, and if you're going to say "Change != better" you better show how the new code is worse and Symantec style reports don't count.
How people can say "ITS XP LOLZ WITH OYE CANDY" is beyond me, they must be incredibly stupid. The majority of bloggers and major/popular sites are scum, they're full of ignorant morons.
Honestly, I think Vista was a good release. An evolutionary one that advanced some major under-the-hood components.
I also think MS' position in the market (considering the ultra-hipness of Apple and "street cred" of Linux amongst the tech elite) is such that a good release is a failure. Windows' momentum will carry it, but to truly be appreciated, any OS or Office release needs to be exceptional. Or at least perceived as such.
Because of that, the usual panning of an MS OS release guided the mass market's general opinion. For reference... search the web for old XP critiques. It was hated as much, or more, than Vista. No one, other than "geeks" (or whatever) listened then. This time, the mass media jumped on the word of tech blogs, as it was sensational. Goliath faltered. The tech-David's were battling back! Like a great sports movie.
None of that's unfair, though. You win 90+% market share and the bar is raised. A lot. It may be ignorant and subjective, but it's still not unfair.
I seem to remember 2000 was considered better, whatever that means. Despite being the same basically.
I am amazed at the number of problems people attribute to Vista because it happened to be the running OS when it happened. If the same issue had occurred anywhere else, it would be correctly assumed to be a Live Messenger problem. But if anything happens out of the ordinary while running Vista, the OS is to blame.
"My dog died when I booted up Vista for the first time. Damn you for releasing this corruption on the world, Microsoft!"
Heh while it is more than likely a Live Messenger issue, you have to remember it's cool for me to hate Vista... it makes me one of the cool kids right.... right?
Have tried updating Live Messenger on both machies, and have installed every update I can for the OS itself. Hopefully it will sort itself out
ArtreusI'm a wizardAnd that looks fucked upRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
Okay, so I have a Dell Vostro 1500 with a built in mic and everything. It worked just fine in XP. But I switched back over to Vista Ultimate, installed the default sound drivers, but my mic is not being recognized or anything. Does anybody know what is up with this?
Okay, so I have a Dell Vostro 1500 with a built in mic and everything. It worked just fine in XP. But I switched back over to Vista Ultimate, installed the default sound drivers, but my mic is not being recognized or anything. Does anybody know what is up with this?
Sound drivers/devices took the biggest hit in Vista... unless you're saying that the machine came with Vista and it worked. "switched back" ?
Okay, so I have a Dell Vostro 1500 with a built in mic and everything. It worked just fine in XP. But I switched back over to Vista Ultimate, installed the default sound drivers, but my mic is not being recognized or anything. Does anybody know what is up with this?
Sound drivers/devices took the biggest hit in Vista... unless you're saying that the machine came with Vista and it worked. "switched back" ?
Yeah, did you even try the mic when it originally shipped? I'm guessing Vista was already installed then..
Malkor on
0
ArtreusI'm a wizardAnd that looks fucked upRegistered Userregular
Okay, so I have a Dell Vostro 1500 with a built in mic and everything. It worked just fine in XP. But I switched back over to Vista Ultimate, installed the default sound drivers, but my mic is not being recognized or anything. Does anybody know what is up with this?
Sound drivers/devices took the biggest hit in Vista... unless you're saying that the machine came with Vista and it worked. "switched back" ?
Yeah, did you even try the mic when it originally shipped? I'm guessing Vista was already installed then..
It shipped with vista, I don't remember using the mic then, I put XP on it pretty quickly and had the mic working for a while. Now I have vista again and no mic support. I installed the vista sound drivers from the dell website and it actually disabled my sound card, so I got the CD that came with my computer, installed those ones, and the sound works again, still no mic.
Edit: Okay sweet I reinstalled the webcam drivers and that fixed the mic.
I'd just like to say that the people who claim Vista is "perfectly fine" are full of shit.
1. I bought Home Premium for my media pc. It installed well and everything ran fine - the media centre options were ludicrously limited, but it ran okay. When it installed, I activated it over the 'net and all was (relatively) well. When SP1 was released, it asked me to install it, and when I clicked yes, it went ahead, downloaded, resetted, and configured the update, then resetted again. Everything seemed hunky dory and the problems I read about SP1 on the 'net I put down to just bad luck. Until when I turned on the media pc a few days later to find it asking me to activate Windows again. Well, you can guess what happened, their automated 'net system told me that I'd already activated and, in so many words, I was nasty pirate scum. I went over the phone service and answered their stupid questions about how many times I activated. Their automated service refused to activate. I finally got through to an actual human being who gave me the activation code.
What'll happen when SP2 comes out? Will Microsoft accuse me of being a thief again? People may say it's just bad luck, but that's no good to me when I'll be forced to fork over hard-earned cash on a program I've already bought.
2. What the fuck is wrong with the network manager? It refuses to see my XP machine and vice versa, and while my desktop with Vista can see the media pc and vice versa, there is a huge labyrinth of options to choose to sort out the right sharing options, but they're all bollocks. I've been swearing at the two machines for the last hour trying to get them to talk, but they just refuse. I set access control to public on both, no joy. I set it to private on both, give them both the same network settings, no joy. I tool around with the sharing options, yeah, you guessed it, no joy. What the bloody hell do I have to do to swap a simple file across a network? The media pc can see my desktop pc, but the desktop asks for user name and password to get through - I don't have a bloody password on my desktop. The desktop can see the media pc but, despite my efforts, cannot go into any of the folders I have shared. It can go into the Public folder but when I start copying, it copies a small little before telling me there's an error, and would I like to try again? Yes I would like to try again, but it just copies the 7.85gb file from the start again before repeating. I tried the "Diagnose and repair" option under both computers as a last resort, but you can imagine how helpful that was.
I really, really want to like Vista, but when I can't even specify where to search on my myriad of hard drives, which XP could do with ease, you've got to question what's in the water over at Redmond.
Rohan on
...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.
I'd just like to say that the people who claim Vista is "perfectly fine" are full of shit.
1. I bought Home Premium for my media pc. It installed well and everything ran fine - the media centre options were ludicrously limited, but it ran okay. When it installed, I activated it over the 'net and all was (relatively) well. When SP1 was released, it asked me to install it, and when I clicked yes, it went ahead, downloaded, resetted, and configured the update, then resetted again. Everything seemed hunky dory and the problems I read about SP1 on the 'net I put down to just bad luck. Until when I turned on the media pc a few days later to find it asking me to activate Windows again. Well, you can guess what happened, their automated 'net system told me that I'd already activated and, in so many words, I was nasty pirate scum. I went over the phone service and answered their stupid questions about how many times I activated. Their automated service refused to activate. I finally got through to an actual human being who gave me the activation code.
What'll happen when SP2 comes out? Will Microsoft accuse me of being a thief again? People may say it's just bad luck, but that's no good to me when I'll be forced to fork over hard-earned cash on a program I've already bought.
2. What the fuck is wrong with the network manager? It refuses to see my XP machine and vice versa, and while my desktop with Vista can see the media pc and vice versa, there is a huge labyrinth of options to choose to sort out the right sharing options, but they're all bollocks. I've been swearing at the two machines for the last hour trying to get them to talk, but they just refuse. I set access control to public on both, no joy. I set it to private on both, give them both the same network settings, no joy. I tool around with the sharing options, yeah, you guessed it, no joy. What the bloody hell do I have to do to swap a simple file across a network? The media pc can see my desktop pc, but the desktop asks for user name and password to get through - I don't have a bloody password on my desktop. The desktop can see the media pc but, despite my efforts, cannot go into any of the folders I have shared. It can go into the Public folder but when I start copying, it copies a small little before telling me there's an error, and would I like to try again? Yes I would like to try again, but it just copies the 7.85gb file from the start again before repeating. I tried the "Diagnose and repair" option under both computers as a last resort, but you can imagine how helpful that was.
I really, really want to like Vista, but when I can't even specify where to search on my myriad of hard drives, which XP could do with ease, you've got to question what's in the water over at Redmond.
Regarding #1, that's bad luck, and sucks. I hate product activation, but I've never had it go wrong for me. It will invariably go wrong for someone, sometime though. That's just an issue with many activation schemes these days.
Regarding #2, make sure that the two PCs are not talking wirelessly nor through a router. Through a switch should result in no issues. Vista transfers files much faster over networks now, and some consumer grade routers do not handle the traffic well.
The final thing, search, if you are using the "Upper Right" search box, you'll notice that you now have the option of "Search Tools" once you start a regular indexed search, select "Search Pane" from that menu, and "Advanced Search". This will bring you to the search you are more used to. If you would like to add locations to your index, go to Control Panel, and search for "Indexing Options".
jonxp on
Every time you write parallel fifths, Bach kills a kitten.
3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576 PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
The desktop can see the media pc but, despite my efforts, cannot go into any of the folders I have shared. It can go into the Public folder but when I start copying, it copies a small little before telling me there's an error, and would I like to try again? Yes I would like to try again, but it just copies the 7.85gb file from the start again before repeating. I tried the "Diagnose and repair" option under both computers as a last resort, but you can imagine how helpful that was.
Make sure you don't use an empty PW for you user account. Also try to disable simple file sharing on the PC which has Windows XP installed (if there is any). Make sure that password protected sharing - option is activated in the Network Sharing manager in Vista. BTW, Windows doesn't like empty PW in shares / user accounts which are used for sharing access and will refuse to connect (at least WinXP SP2 does). Try to set a PW on both PCs.
Check in the options of the shared device that the necessary options are set (in vista -> shared drive - right click - advanced sharing - permissions -> your user, enable everything. I would suggest to remove the entry "everybody" while you are on it.)
If you can't see the PC in the network manager, try to enter the ip adress in the adress bar (simply use a explorer window) -> syntax "\\192.168.xxx.xxx" - without quotes. If something shows up, you could try to create a network drive, so that it remains permanently in "my computer", without forcing you to enter the adress again. Spamming the F5 button helps too, sometimes.
Honestly, I think Vista was a good release. An evolutionary one that advanced some major under-the-hood components.
Exactly, it has some of the biggest changes in Windows since probably 95. So many subsystems (Networking, audio, printing, etc) are completely new, a new codebase, a new GUI, a new kernel, a new driver model, a completely new image based setup (Which cost install times by a third, if not more -- how can people gloss over such a big improvement?), new agnostics, monitoring and reporting, new imaging framework, new power management, new I/O technology (SuperFetch, Readyboost, ReadyDrive, and other stuff which doesn't have a flash marketing name), new parental controls, etc.
Hell, what was a bigger jump? 3.1 to 95? And another question, just what in Vista wasn't changed? Oh, and if you're going to say "Change != better" you better show how the new code is worse and Symantec style reports don't count.
How people can say "ITS XP LOLZ WITH OYE CANDY" is beyond me, they must be incredibly stupid. The majority of bloggers and major/popular sites are scum, they're full of ignorant morons.
The only reason people are saying its XP with eye candy is because most of the changes to the various subsystems aren't readily apparent. You're not going to notice new sound and network stuff unless you try playing an mp3 in windows media player while you transfer stuff over your network. Then you'll see your transfer rate go down by a huge amount. Thats new behavior. Something someone might notice.
Honestly, I think Vista was a good release. An evolutionary one that advanced some major under-the-hood components.
Exactly, it has some of the biggest changes in Windows since probably 95. So many subsystems (Networking, audio, printing, etc) are completely new, a new codebase, a new GUI, a new kernel, a new driver model, a completely new image based setup (Which cost install times by a third, if not more -- how can people gloss over such a big improvement?), new agnostics, monitoring and reporting, new imaging framework, new power management, new I/O technology (SuperFetch, Readyboost, ReadyDrive, and other stuff which doesn't have a flash marketing name), new parental controls, etc.
Hell, what was a bigger jump? 3.1 to 95? And another question, just what in Vista wasn't changed? Oh, and if you're going to say "Change != better" you better show how the new code is worse and Symantec style reports don't count.
How people can say "ITS XP LOLZ WITH OYE CANDY" is beyond me, they must be incredibly stupid. The majority of bloggers and major/popular sites are scum, they're full of ignorant morons.
The only reason people are saying its XP with eye candy is because most of the changes to the various subsystems aren't readily apparent. You're not going to notice new sound and network stuff unless you try playing an mp3 in windows media player while you transfer stuff over your network. Then you'll see your transfer rate go down by a huge amount. Thats new behavior. Something someone might notice.
Now, to be fair, that only affects gigabit speed networks. Not to say it isn't the WORST DESIGNED CPU THROTTLE EVER but it is something easily missed in testing as most people don't run gigabit networks (or even utilize the full network bandwidth thereof) especially on machines that would be used for playing music.
jonxp on
Every time you write parallel fifths, Bach kills a kitten.
3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576 PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
0
ArtreusI'm a wizardAnd that looks fucked upRegistered Userregular
2. What the fuck is wrong with the network manager? It refuses to see my XP machine and vice versa, and while my desktop with Vista can see the media pc and vice versa, there is a huge labyrinth of options to choose to sort out the right sharing options, but they're all bollocks. I've been swearing at the two machines for the last hour trying to get them to talk, but they just refuse. I set access control to public on both, no joy. I set it to private on both, give them both the same network settings, no joy. I tool around with the sharing options, yeah, you guessed it, no joy. What the bloody hell do I have to do to swap a simple file across a network? The media pc can see my desktop pc, but the desktop asks for user name and password to get through - I don't have a bloody password on my desktop. The desktop can see the media pc but, despite my efforts, cannot go into any of the folders I have shared. It can go into the Public folder but when I start copying, it copies a small little before telling me there's an error, and would I like to try again? Yes I would like to try again, but it just copies the 7.85gb file from the start again before repeating. I tried the "Diagnose and repair" option under both computers as a last resort, but you can imagine how helpful that was.
I really, really want to like Vista, but when I can't even specify where to search on my myriad of hard drives, which XP could do with ease, you've got to question what's in the water over at Redmond.
Networking in XP was a fucking nightmare. This is windows problem, not anything new to vista.
Now, to be fair, that only affects gigabit speed networks. Not to say it isn't the WORST DESIGNED CPU THROTTLE EVER but it is something easily missed in testing as most people don't run gigabit networks (or even utilize the full network bandwidth thereof) especially on machines that would be used for playing music.
You don't need to use anywhere close to the full network bandwidth on a gigabit link to see the throttling. I can barely muster 30MB/sec between machines on my gigabit network at home and I saw the throttling.
Now, to be fair, that only affects gigabit speed networks. Not to say it isn't the WORST DESIGNED CPU THROTTLE EVER but it is something easily missed in testing as most people don't run gigabit networks (or even utilize the full network bandwidth thereof) especially on machines that would be used for playing music.
You don't need to use anywhere close to the full network bandwidth on a gigabit link to see the throttling. I can barely muster 30MB/sec between machines on my gigabit network at home and I saw the throttling.
But, as I said, it is not a *common* thing, which is why it was missed. People with 100 Mbit networks don't see the throttling, and *generally* people with gigabit networks are using them for servers or sub 100Mbit speeds.
I'm talking from a testing standpoint ("Yeah, I would have missed that too when testing contracted code") not a brain dead design standpoint.
jonxp on
Every time you write parallel fifths, Bach kills a kitten.
3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576 PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
Now, to be fair, that only affects gigabit speed networks. Not to say it isn't the WORST DESIGNED CPU THROTTLE EVER but it is something easily missed in testing as most people don't run gigabit networks (or even utilize the full network bandwidth thereof) especially on machines that would be used for playing music.
You don't need to use anywhere close to the full network bandwidth on a gigabit link to see the throttling. I can barely muster 30MB/sec between machines on my gigabit network at home and I saw the throttling.
But, as I said, it is not a *common* thing, which is why it was missed. People with 100 Mbit networks don't see the throttling, and *generally* people with gigabit networks are using them for servers or sub 100Mbit speeds.
I'm talking from a testing standpoint ("Yeah, I would have missed that too when testing contracted code") not a brain dead design standpoint.
I've noticed the affect playing music has on network performance.
The way I notice it, it's more of a latency issue than bandwidth. Like, say, loading a web page. While playing music, it takes a bit longer (in ms) to ping the server than it does when not playing music. Hence making the web page load longer than usual (in ms).
But the last time I noticed this was last year. It might have been fixed already, or I just got used to it.
This certainly isn't a game changing issue though. It's nothing to fret about.
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.
But like I said, it was a latency issue, and even then, it was hardly noticeable. (I'm a bit anal retentive).
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.
0
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
I have personally been running Vista Ultimate on my laptop and desktop for about 9 months now and have not had any major issues with it. There are a few annoyances that I worked around with software I have been running for years now. Hell on my new build I went with 64bit Ultimate and it is running great. I have been able to run any game I throw at it. The only problem is a few system utilities I used to work with don't work in Vista 64, but it is no great loss to me. All of the hardware I have works flawlessly with it. I have a rather beefy system so being able to run Vista with all the "Eye Candy" turned on it nice. I really like the way vista does thumbnails for videos. With XP, it would only show the fist frame of the video. With most of the videos I have, the first frame tells you nothing about the content. With vista it takes a screenshot from a random point in the video. I am usually able to tell if I have watched something already like this. I must say that Vista is starting to grow on me.
2. What the fuck is wrong with the network manager? It refuses to see my XP machine and vice versa, and while my desktop with Vista can see the media pc and vice versa, there is a huge labyrinth of options to choose to sort out the right sharing options, but they're all bollocks. I've been swearing at the two machines for the last hour trying to get them to talk, but they just refuse. I set access control to public on both, no joy. I set it to private on both, give them both the same network settings, no joy. I tool around with the sharing options, yeah, you guessed it, no joy. What the bloody hell do I have to do to swap a simple file across a network? The media pc can see my desktop pc, but the desktop asks for user name and password to get through - I don't have a bloody password on my desktop. The desktop can see the media pc but, despite my efforts, cannot go into any of the folders I have shared. It can go into the Public folder but when I start copying, it copies a small little before telling me there's an error, and would I like to try again? Yes I would like to try again, but it just copies the 7.85gb file from the start again before repeating. I tried the "Diagnose and repair" option under both computers as a last resort, but you can imagine how helpful that was.
I really, really want to like Vista, but when I can't even specify where to search on my myriad of hard drives, which XP could do with ease, you've got to question what's in the water over at Redmond.
Networking in XP was a fucking nightmare. This is windows problem, not anything new to vista.
Having been to more than my fair share of lans, Vista networking is about 1000000x better than it ever was in XP. Enable guest account, turn on network discovery and file sharing in the network and connections folder, go to the folders you want to share and share them but add the guest account to the sharing permissions.
If the network speeds are slow, it's probably your network. Most routers designed for home use are absolutely fucking shit.
As for the MCSS sound/network problem, Arstechnica has a fairly good article with a slight workaround that might help some people out if they scoot on over to here
My router is just fine, we use it all the time on our XP machines (five seeing regular use in the house) and we never have any problem. Vista doesn't seem to have a problem with it either because I've never had 'net troubles... just when trying to do something as simple as copy a file across. When I install XP I know that I only have to change one or two things before the network will be up and running perfect again on that computer... maybe it's just the way Microsoft has changed the network stuff and I'm just not getting it, but it seems needlessly frustrating, coming from so many years of networking with XP.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, the reason Vista wanted to activate again? When I turned the media pc on again after a few days, I forgot to mention that it didn't just up and tell me to activate once more, oh no. What it did was give me the exact same message as it did before when SP1 was released and asked if I wanted to install it. I thought, what the fuck? And let it download and install. Again. And that's when it asked me to activate. Again. How can anyone program such a stupid os? All the updates that were available were downloaded and installed, and yes, I really DID install SP1 a few days prior to this, by just letting it go through the usual Windows Update motions on it's own. And then it did it again. I mean, come on...
Rohan on
...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.
My router is just fine, we use it all the time on our XP machines (five seeing regular use in the house) and we never have any problem. Vista doesn't seem to have a problem with it either because I've never had 'net troubles... just when trying to do something as simple as copy a file across. When I install XP I know that I only have to change one or two things before the network will be up and running perfect again on that computer... maybe it's just the way Microsoft has changed the network stuff and I'm just not getting it, but it seems needlessly frustrating, coming from so many years of networking with XP.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, the reason Vista wanted to activate again? When I turned the media pc on again after a few days, I forgot to mention that it didn't just up and tell me to activate once more, oh no. What it did was give me the exact same message as it did before when SP1 was released and asked if I wanted to install it. I thought, what the fuck? And let it download and install. Again. And that's when it asked me to activate. Again. How can anyone program such a stupid os? All the updates that were available were downloaded and installed, and yes, I really DID install SP1 a few days prior to this, by just letting it go through the usual Windows Update motions on it's own. And then it did it again. I mean, come on...
Posts
"My dog died when I booted up Vista for the first time. Damn you for releasing this corruption on the world, Microsoft!"
3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576
PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
It's like what we'll see when IE8 is released. When websites break, it'll be 8's fault. Not the fact that 7 and earlier were broken and forced nonstandard web design to function, and 8 will finally bring the browser in line with the likes of every other browser out there.
Not everyone can be educated in technology and troubleshooting.
The Internet is a glorious place.
Not an answer to your question but unless you actually have a problem that Windows Defender didn't catch there's hardly a need for it.
Ad Aware reports a lot of false positives to make you feel like you're solving problems.
For the most part, yeah, but when one of my sticks went bad and I was stuck with only 1gig while waiting for the RMA, it was starting to chug with just firefox+2 or 3 instances of word.
Also, we have an acer laptop that we sell in both XP and Vista, but the XP one is $250 Aussie fun bucks more for the same specs... people still buy it more than the vista.
I also think MS' position in the market (considering the ultra-hipness of Apple and "street cred" of Linux amongst the tech elite) is such that a good release is a failure. Windows' momentum will carry it, but to truly be appreciated, any OS or Office release needs to be exceptional. Or at least perceived as such.
Because of that, the usual panning of an MS OS release guided the mass market's general opinion. For reference... search the web for old XP critiques. It was hated as much, or more, than Vista. No one, other than "geeks" (or whatever) listened then. This time, the mass media jumped on the word of tech blogs, as it was sensational. Goliath faltered. The tech-David's were battling back! Like a great sports movie.
None of that's unfair, though. You win 90+% market share and the bar is raised. A lot. It may be ignorant and subjective, but it's still not unfair.
Hey, I spout off bullshit opinions all the time.
I can't fault them for the same. It's just too bad people think they know what they're talking about.
Hell, what was a bigger jump? 3.1 to 95? And another question, just what in Vista wasn't changed? Oh, and if you're going to say "Change != better" you better show how the new code is worse and Symantec style reports don't count.
How people can say "ITS XP LOLZ WITH OYE CANDY" is beyond me, they must be incredibly stupid. The majority of bloggers and major/popular sites are scum, they're full of ignorant morons.
I seem to remember 2000 was considered better, whatever that means. Despite being the same basically.
Heh while it is more than likely a Live Messenger issue, you have to remember it's cool for me to hate Vista... it makes me one of the cool kids right.... right?
Have tried updating Live Messenger on both machies, and have installed every update I can for the OS itself. Hopefully it will sort itself out
It shipped with vista, I don't remember using the mic then, I put XP on it pretty quickly and had the mic working for a while. Now I have vista again and no mic support. I installed the vista sound drivers from the dell website and it actually disabled my sound card, so I got the CD that came with my computer, installed those ones, and the sound works again, still no mic.
Edit: Okay sweet I reinstalled the webcam drivers and that fixed the mic.
1. I bought Home Premium for my media pc. It installed well and everything ran fine - the media centre options were ludicrously limited, but it ran okay. When it installed, I activated it over the 'net and all was (relatively) well. When SP1 was released, it asked me to install it, and when I clicked yes, it went ahead, downloaded, resetted, and configured the update, then resetted again. Everything seemed hunky dory and the problems I read about SP1 on the 'net I put down to just bad luck. Until when I turned on the media pc a few days later to find it asking me to activate Windows again. Well, you can guess what happened, their automated 'net system told me that I'd already activated and, in so many words, I was nasty pirate scum. I went over the phone service and answered their stupid questions about how many times I activated. Their automated service refused to activate. I finally got through to an actual human being who gave me the activation code.
What'll happen when SP2 comes out? Will Microsoft accuse me of being a thief again? People may say it's just bad luck, but that's no good to me when I'll be forced to fork over hard-earned cash on a program I've already bought.
2. What the fuck is wrong with the network manager? It refuses to see my XP machine and vice versa, and while my desktop with Vista can see the media pc and vice versa, there is a huge labyrinth of options to choose to sort out the right sharing options, but they're all bollocks. I've been swearing at the two machines for the last hour trying to get them to talk, but they just refuse. I set access control to public on both, no joy. I set it to private on both, give them both the same network settings, no joy. I tool around with the sharing options, yeah, you guessed it, no joy. What the bloody hell do I have to do to swap a simple file across a network? The media pc can see my desktop pc, but the desktop asks for user name and password to get through - I don't have a bloody password on my desktop. The desktop can see the media pc but, despite my efforts, cannot go into any of the folders I have shared. It can go into the Public folder but when I start copying, it copies a small little before telling me there's an error, and would I like to try again? Yes I would like to try again, but it just copies the 7.85gb file from the start again before repeating. I tried the "Diagnose and repair" option under both computers as a last resort, but you can imagine how helpful that was.
I really, really want to like Vista, but when I can't even specify where to search on my myriad of hard drives, which XP could do with ease, you've got to question what's in the water over at Redmond.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
Regarding #1, that's bad luck, and sucks. I hate product activation, but I've never had it go wrong for me. It will invariably go wrong for someone, sometime though. That's just an issue with many activation schemes these days.
Regarding #2, make sure that the two PCs are not talking wirelessly nor through a router. Through a switch should result in no issues. Vista transfers files much faster over networks now, and some consumer grade routers do not handle the traffic well.
The final thing, search, if you are using the "Upper Right" search box, you'll notice that you now have the option of "Search Tools" once you start a regular indexed search, select "Search Pane" from that menu, and "Advanced Search". This will bring you to the search you are more used to. If you would like to add locations to your index, go to Control Panel, and search for "Indexing Options".
3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576
PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
Make sure you don't use an empty PW for you user account. Also try to disable simple file sharing on the PC which has Windows XP installed (if there is any). Make sure that password protected sharing - option is activated in the Network Sharing manager in Vista. BTW, Windows doesn't like empty PW in shares / user accounts which are used for sharing access and will refuse to connect (at least WinXP SP2 does). Try to set a PW on both PCs.
Check in the options of the shared device that the necessary options are set (in vista -> shared drive - right click - advanced sharing - permissions -> your user, enable everything. I would suggest to remove the entry "everybody" while you are on it.)
If you can't see the PC in the network manager, try to enter the ip adress in the adress bar (simply use a explorer window) -> syntax "\\192.168.xxx.xxx" - without quotes. If something shows up, you could try to create a network drive, so that it remains permanently in "my computer", without forcing you to enter the adress again. Spamming the F5 button helps too, sometimes.
The only reason people are saying its XP with eye candy is because most of the changes to the various subsystems aren't readily apparent. You're not going to notice new sound and network stuff unless you try playing an mp3 in windows media player while you transfer stuff over your network. Then you'll see your transfer rate go down by a huge amount. Thats new behavior. Something someone might notice.
Now, to be fair, that only affects gigabit speed networks. Not to say it isn't the WORST DESIGNED CPU THROTTLE EVER but it is something easily missed in testing as most people don't run gigabit networks (or even utilize the full network bandwidth thereof) especially on machines that would be used for playing music.
3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576
PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
Networking in XP was a fucking nightmare. This is windows problem, not anything new to vista.
You don't need to use anywhere close to the full network bandwidth on a gigabit link to see the throttling. I can barely muster 30MB/sec between machines on my gigabit network at home and I saw the throttling.
But, as I said, it is not a *common* thing, which is why it was missed. People with 100 Mbit networks don't see the throttling, and *generally* people with gigabit networks are using them for servers or sub 100Mbit speeds.
I'm talking from a testing standpoint ("Yeah, I would have missed that too when testing contracted code") not a brain dead design standpoint.
3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576
PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
I've noticed the affect playing music has on network performance.
The way I notice it, it's more of a latency issue than bandwidth. Like, say, loading a web page. While playing music, it takes a bit longer (in ms) to ping the server than it does when not playing music. Hence making the web page load longer than usual (in ms).
But the last time I noticed this was last year. It might have been fixed already, or I just got used to it.
This certainly isn't a game changing issue though. It's nothing to fret about.
But like I said, it was a latency issue, and even then, it was hardly noticeable. (I'm a bit anal retentive).
Having been to more than my fair share of lans, Vista networking is about 1000000x better than it ever was in XP. Enable guest account, turn on network discovery and file sharing in the network and connections folder, go to the folders you want to share and share them but add the guest account to the sharing permissions.
If the network speeds are slow, it's probably your network. Most routers designed for home use are absolutely fucking shit.
As for the MCSS sound/network problem, Arstechnica has a fairly good article with a slight workaround that might help some people out if they scoot on over to here
Oh, and I forgot to mention, the reason Vista wanted to activate again? When I turned the media pc on again after a few days, I forgot to mention that it didn't just up and tell me to activate once more, oh no. What it did was give me the exact same message as it did before when SP1 was released and asked if I wanted to install it. I thought, what the fuck? And let it download and install. Again. And that's when it asked me to activate. Again. How can anyone program such a stupid os? All the updates that were available were downloaded and installed, and yes, I really DID install SP1 a few days prior to this, by just letting it go through the usual Windows Update motions on it's own. And then it did it again. I mean, come on...
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
I should have the capability to use Vista 64 bit. Should I? Or would I be better off sticking with 32 bit?
Also, if I were to use 64 bit, could I use the serial # for a 32 bit version?