The way I see it(Vista) 11 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

086goinfast

NObama

50 XP

6th March 2006

0 Uploads

9,633 Posts

0 Threads

#1 10 years ago

Most of the complaints i've seen are from poeple that bought it by itself. So, the way I see it your options are buying Vista by itself if your computer meets the recommended specs, or buy a whole new computer with Vista already on it, or if you don't meet the recommended specs either upgrade or stay with XP.




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#2 10 years ago

Yay for completely and utterly random posts about common sense?




Freyr VIP Member

A2Files Staff

46,875 XP

5th February 2005

11 Uploads

4,275 Posts

0 Threads

#3 10 years ago

I can't speak for the comments on Vista you have seen, because I don't know what you have read, but the rest is correct.

Was there a question in there somewhere?

Oh, and the obvious question; were you planning on downgrading to Vista?




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#4 10 years ago

It's really nice being able to run Vista flawlessly. Dunno what I'm doing right(or not doing wrong).




>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#5 10 years ago

Yes but aside from the common sense part of using Vista on spec that meets it's requirements, there are still bugs in it to be worked out and performance issues that are not making it look anywhere near what MS claimed it and DX10 would be. It's common for people to say Vista needs a better rig to run on but the fact is even when you have good spec most are experiencing noticably better peformance on a broader range of games with XP. For the most part better spec means at least 2 GB RAM for Aero. Other than that they're talking DX10 hardware IF you want DX10 support in games that offer it. Neither has anything to do with overall frame rates lower than XP in games because even with DX10 effects off it's slower. Vista is a lot like Crysis, look at the sales. CoD4 is spanking the heck out of Crysis largely due to many not wanting to buy high end gear just to still get sluggish performance. There may come a day when Vista is worth "upgrading" to with fully functional and efficient 64 bit performance, but that day has far from come.




Dark Saint

How many dogs are Pb'd?Maybe 2

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

8,040 Posts

0 Threads

#6 10 years ago

Vista can be used on pcs that are listed under the minimum specs. We all went through this with Xp and Xp "lite".

The issues that people were running across, were support for drivers and software.




Sheepeep VIP Member

weirdal = new ptaq()

31,600 XP

2nd September 2003

0 Uploads

2,948 Posts

0 Threads

#7 10 years ago
goin fast;4133816Most of the complaints i've seen are from poeple that bought it by itself. So, the way I see it your options are buying Vista by itself if your computer meets the recommended specs, or buy a whole new computer with Vista already on it, or if you don't meet the recommended specs either upgrade or stay with XP.

Whilst what you've said is true, I think there are some significant points to be raised in this:

First, to get it out of the way, there are still many complaints from those who bought Vista with their PC. Notably, those who bought it with a laptop. Maybe that makes Vista better suited for a desktop, I'm not at liberty to say, since I wouldn't install it.

Second, you're missing what I consider a key point: Demographics. The people likely to buy Vista on its own are probably more capable of reviewing it than those who have purchased it with their PC/laptop. Consider, that someone who buys Vista, presumably knows how to install it, perhaps mess with their BIOS to change their boot priority, and definitely fit into what Microsoft would call a "Power user".

The power users are those who know the difference far better than regular users, will notice driver incompatibilities, and will know where to complain about them. Home users will know that it looks pretty, and might notice it's a bit slower. That's obviously a generalisation, and you get plenty of people who buy a Vista laptop and run off to write Assembler code for it, and you get plenty of people who buy Vista and can't tell it apart from an AOL trial disc, but certainly as a general rule, users tend to be more technologically inclined if they purchased the operating system indepedently.

Also consider that those who buy a "slow" Vista laptop, have a laptop to complain about. Those who bought a "slow" Vista OS can only complain about the OS they just spent their money on.

In short, it's just as important to consider who is buying as it is to consider what is being bought.




Freyr VIP Member

A2Files Staff

46,875 XP

5th February 2005

11 Uploads

4,275 Posts

0 Threads

#8 10 years ago
Sheepeep;4134791In short, it's just as important to consider who is buying as it is to consider what is being bought.

Definitely. I don't personally know any tech enthusiasts or IT professionals that run Vista personally or professionally around where I live/work.

I also don't see people I would consider to be advanced users/techs using it here either so I suspect Vista adoption is limited to OEM purchases and the lower end of the computer hobbiests.




086goinfast

NObama

50 XP

6th March 2006

0 Uploads

9,633 Posts

0 Threads

#9 10 years ago
Freyr;4133904Was there a question in there somewhere?

Why would there be? I didn't intend for there to be one. Not all posts in tech have to have a question.

Oh, and the obvious question; were you planning on downgrading to Vista?

I UPGRADED a long time ago. The only problem with Vista is that it asks too many questions but ofcourse thats an easy fix. @Sheepeep You hit the nail on the head.




*The.Doctor

Trust me, I'm a Doctor

102,440 XP

25th November 2003

0 Uploads

9,964 Posts

0 Threads

#10 10 years ago

I used Vista for a little while on my PC, i was not that impressed. Its pretty much just XP, that uses a lot more resources, with a fancier default theme and some new GUI graphics and effects.

It ran fine on my PC though, just as fast as XP does on the desktop i would say, but games were noticeably slower. Some of the games i can run at high settings under XP i had to set on medium settings in Vista, which is why i'm running XP again. On thing that bothered me is the way the system hardware drivers work, i don't know all the detials but it pretty much renders any of the GPU overclocking programs like RivaTuner and ATI Tool useless right now unless you spend a bit of time in the command prompt changing settings.

I didn't have any game or driver compatability issues either, its just that right now for me, XP is the better choice for my system. I do like the GUI and overall smooth look of Vista, but with a nice theme and a icon set you can make XP look pretty much the same, and barely use anymore ram than XP does with its default themes.

Once i get my new build done, i most likely will be running Vista Home Premium again though, mainly because i'm going to have DX10 hardware, and want to be able to actually use DX10.




  • 1
  • 2