Vista users, how is it?

I'm sure some of you are already using Vista, so I wanted to know,  how is it?  Is it worth it right now, or should I wait for the bugs to be worked out?

gtfo

>Is it worth it right now

Why don't you ask this question to yourself. Is it worth it? Obviously not. No optimized drivers, no optimized applications, no DirectX10, nothing. Is the eye candy really worth it? Do you like 500MB RAM used up upon starting a system?

I don't.

>>1
I'm not sure. I really liked it when I tried it (OSXfag here). Lots of tweaks ance nice things, plus it's kind of retarded not to be running in a GPU-accelerated windowing environment in 2006\2007.

If you have concerns over using every little part of every little resource available in your computer with the highest possible efficiency, it's obviously not the best idea, same if you're obsessed with security concerns or stability. But if you want a better OS, I'd say now's a fine time to try it out, the final feels pretty good to me, plus it's so much better organised with some decent inbuilt apps that feel very OS X-ey (calendar, photo gallery, even mail).

>>3
lol ram. Used about as much as I'd expect when I tried it - heaven forbid a modern OS actually recognises the fact most people would prefer a more responsive interface with more useful features than have much of their 512mb-2gb of RAM avaiable sitting around doing nothing. Go back to coding your unix command line in assembly.

>>4
Fuck off.  Go get an Xbox 360/Wii/WebTV and browse the Internet from that since you obviously don't use any of your computer's resources for anything else.  Dipshits like YOU pay $750-$1000 or more just for a machine to browse your shitty Myspace and check your E-mail every two seconds for your ultra-valuable Nigerian Viagra spam.  Play games?  Get a console and GTFO asshole.  Not everyone likes 50%+ of their system resources dedicated to spoon-feeding them like a moronic fuckface.  Some of us actually have our computer DO WORK.

I like the graphics in Vista but it's slower.  I tended to like the new Start Menu and one thing that caught my eye is the Autoplay function had it's own control panel icon; about time.

Well I do plan on using my new computer for a lot of graphical work; photoshop, illustrator, flash, etc.

If I were using vista with a gig of quality RAM (and high end video card, and dual core processer w/4mb L2 cashe) would I notice any glaring problems? 

>>5
You fuck off.
A system that needs 1 GiB of RAM just to run smooth is plain retarded. Ok, you can turn Aero off, but then you can use XP, it's the same, except that the audio system is better. With Vista, you can't record sound card output and you can't use EAX in games. Thanks, RIAA!
Games run smoother under XP anyway.

Also, as soon as you do video editing or picture editing you will miss the RAM.


And no, I'm not >>4

>>1
i tried vista, sucks about as much as www.opera.com

>>7
sage for failure, not reading >>5, etc.

Sup, >>4 here

>>5
Did you miss the part where I mentioned I was a Mac user? I rarely play games on my computer, and I didn't think games are considered much of a reason to use Vista to begin with. Your rant is misguided and confusing.

With your weird point "SOME OF US USE THE COMPUTER TO DO WORK", you are negating the fact that a properly indexed file search can help your work, as can advanced window manipulation stuff like the taskbar thumbnails and Flip3D thing, as can even goddamn widgets in certain cases. I'm not arguing that these are all well implemented or will be universally useful to everyone, but stuff like Vista's GPU-based windowing, enhanced explorer thumbnails, centralised calendar\address book\photo databases, previous versions etc are not going to unambiguously hamper your ability to do work, and will in most cases augment it, however slightly. Are you the same type of guy that held off on switching to Win95 because DOS loaded faster?

>>6
No. 1gb is just fine for Vista, though if you're a hardcore PS user you might want a bit more. I'd just make sure all your apps are considered stable and compatible, not sure if Adobe is waiting for CS3 to do Vista support right.

>>7
What the shit. "NO OPERATING SYSTEM SHOULD NEED 1GB OF RAM!" "OKAY I GUESS IT DOESN'T NEED 1GB OF RAM BUT THEN IT DISABLES THE RAM-HUNGRY FEATURES!" Stop fucking crying and buy a $30 stick of ram for your ailing 512mb PC and enjoy the fact that the software world moved on after 2001 just like the component manufacturers did. Vista is not the greatest most perfect thing in the world by any means, nor is Tiger, but they both have a lot of neat things that make use of the fact we now have beastly graphics cards and dual core 2ghz processors that sit around doing nothing 95% of the time. Accept fucking progress and upgrade when you feel your system's up to it.

Also what? OS X is just as much of a RAM hog and last I heard a lot of video and graphics people use Macs. You're talking out your ass and are exaggerating both the amount of extra RAM usage of Vista compared to XP and the inconvenience of getting more RAM. Besides, most PCs have been coming with 1gb for some time now, and 1gb is more than enough for Vista.

>>10
Strange, I use a 3D Desktop and all that fancy stuff is enabled and I still need just 80 MB RAM. XP uses ~200 BTW, and I'm talking right about the "right after installation" part here. The 80 MB are after half a year running it and installing and deinstalling a crapload of programs. Okay, when running Azureus I reach the 300 MB.

So, buying new stuff isn't neccessary to run a modern OS AND do RAM-consuming work. But Windows always had it's memory leaks, so it can't be changed I guess.

And that many ppl use them for video and image stuff is because Macs use this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMYK_color_model

Gosh, this board keeps getting shittier. Please read my post:

1. Windows Vista blows. It's made of fail and bullshit. It's targeted at morons who haven't realized you can't work with a transparent interface, and morons who care for braindamaged, bloated file managers.

2. Windows Vista blows. It sucks how it wastes system resources on pure shit.

3. Windows Vista blows. It's criminal that it's bundled with digital AIDS and you no longer control or own your files, Microsoft and its buddies do.

4. I don't have time to read the whole thread, but there's stuff for Linux users too. Windows XP uses 200 MB and you're talking right about the "right after installation". Of course. On a shitty moronic Internet Explorer user's machine, that 200 MB can only grow. On my installations, that goes down to 100 MB at most, with everything I want (after installing my stuff). Windows no longer has grave memory leaks and memory leaks are not the source of this 200 MB. Shit features for shit users are.

5. CMYK retards, printing retards and similar kinds of non-wanted-anywhere people should go to http://www.apple.com/ . Also get ready for some $5000 on fancy iProducts.

6. Anyways, >>1, please listen to me. That it's really related to this thread. I went to Yoshinoya a while ago; you know, Yoshinoya? Well anyways there was an insane number of people there, and I couldn't get in. Then, I looked at the banner hanging from the ceiling, and it had "150 yen off" written on it. Oh, the stupidity. Those idiots. You, don't come to Yoshinoya just because it's 150 yen off, fool. It's only 150 yen, 1-5-0 YEN for crying out loud. There're even entire families here. Family of 4, all out for some Yoshinoya, huh? How fucking nice. "Alright, daddy's gonna order the extra-large." God I can't bear to watch. You people, I'll give you 150 yen if you get out of those seats. Yosinoya should be a bloody place. That tense atmosphere, where two guys on opposite sides of the U-shaped table can start a fight at any time, the stab-or-be-stabbed mentality, that's what's great about this place. Women and children should screw off and stay home. Anyways, I was about to start eating, and then the bastard beside me goes "extra-large, with extra sauce." Who in the world orders extra sauce nowadays, you moron? I want to ask him, "do you REALLY want to eat it with extra sauce?" I want to interrogate him. I want to interrogate him for roughly an hour. Are you sure you don't just want to try saying "extra sauce"? Coming from a Yoshinoya veteran such as myself, the latest trend among us vets is this, extra green onion. That's right, extra green onion. This is the vet's way of eating. Extra green onion means more green onion than sauce. But on the other hand the price is a tad higher. This is the key. And then, it's delicious. This is unbeatable. However, if you order this then there is danger that you'll be marked by the employees from next time on; it's a double-edged sword. I can't recommend it to amateurs. What this all really means, though, is that you, >>1, should just stick with today's special.

>>12
this post is infected

>>13
with truth

>>12
Wow.  You're a faggot and your posts weren't helpful in the least.    I can't help but think you don't know shit about computers.  You fail at life, and I bet Japan hates you.  weeaboo.

>>15
Ad homofaggot logical fallacy, all your opinions are now by definition wrong.

lol discussing Vista = instafail
you all lose...and thus I do too, but it was worth it

>>15
They would be helpful if you had any branes. Then again, if you had, you wouldn't be asking for Windows Vista shit.

P.S.: I make bread with "computers". And I'm not a weeaboo, I'm a VIPPER.

>>11
Well, sure, okay, Linux shows that you can be RAM-efficient and offer 3D stuff. I don't think that changes much if all you want to use is Windows, though, like the OP probably does for various reasons outside the scope of this thread. My point still stands, Vista costs a little more RAM for a significant bunch of tweaks and new features. The bloat rate is probably no different than it was before, there's just new crap piled on top of it to make use of faster computers, just like the evolution of pretty much all OSes that weren't the first few years of OS X.

>>12
You're dumb. Who the fuck cares about DRM that you don't have to use and 200mb of RAM you probably already had free? This casts further doubt on the authenticity of point 6.

>>19
The bloat rate for Vista has increased. They have to support over 20 years of computing cruft in the name of backwards compatibility AND they add new crap on top of that in the name of innovation.

>>20
Have you even used it? Aero's not by any means slow on a modern (1.5ghz+) computer with even 512mb ram. The only bloat argument I might accept as valid is the amount of hard drive space used (7gb I believe) but you get a lot of free apps now, and again.. just how much bigger have hard drives got since 2001?

I'd say the bloat rate is far less than it was with Win3.1->Win95 or Win95->Win98\IE4, which were not updates that saw 5 years of computer upgrades inbetween it and its predecessor.

>>20
No. They dropped support for 16-bit programs. YAY! WAY TO GO, MICROSOFT! Maybe in ten years the function calls for Win 98 will be removed!

>>4
>coding your unix command line in assembly.
fapfapfapfapfapfapfap

>>19
Vista costs a little more RAM for a significant bunch of tweaks
"A little"? Ha ha ha. More like Vista costs a shitload more RAM for a significant bunch of AIDS, stupidity, and useless features.

Who the fuck cares about DRM that you don't have to use
Because others use it, and because I don't want digital AIDS services running in my system and violating my most basic rights.

200mb of RAM you probably already had free
Because I do real work with my computer, and as such, I don't have "free RAM", and because there is no such thing as "free RAM". All my currently unused RAM goes to the system cache, which makes IO faster.

>>21
Aero's not by any means slow on a modern (1.5ghz+) computer with even 512mb ram.
If you need that much to run an OS, you're failing. Plus yeah, Vista and Aero run with some swap on 512 MB RAM... and that's all. You can't think of using any real application on it because you're simply out of RAM after loading Vista. You'll end up swapping the fuck out of anything and swap thrashing.

you get a lot of free apps now
Fail. If Vista were free, that'd be partially right. But since it isn't, you don't get a lot of free apps, you get forced to buy a lot of apps, and half-assed ones at that.

I'd say the bloat rate is far less than it was with Win3.1->Win95 or Win95->Win98\IE4
And you'd be wrong. If you don't even know what Vista has, does, and is all about, why the heck are you even defending it?

>All my currently unused RAM goes to the system cache, which makes IO faster.
It'd be fair to say Avalon (probably responsible for the majority of extra RAM usage in Vista) is another way Vista more efficiently uses the RAM as cache. I can recognise your point here but it's also worth noting that RAM management and clever caching has not typically been Windows' forte, and for many users the performance difference of having 300mb instead of 500mb free on an idle system is not going to be particularly noticeable.

>Fail. If Vista were free, that'd be partially right. But since it isn't, you don't get a lot of free apps, you get forced to buy a lot of apps, and half-assed ones at that.
I mean free in the sense that OS X provides lots of frameworks for "free". The apps like Windows Calendar, Address Book, Photo Gallery, etc are built in, using standard system databases that offer the advantage of being ubiquitous, pre-installed and well-integrated.

>And you'd be wrong. If you don't even know what Vista has, does, and is all about, why the heck are you even defending it?
What are you talking about? You haven't said why I'm wrong, and from my perspective it seems like your opinions of Vista's memory usage and featureset haven't been inspired by actually using the OS as I have. It is difficult to perceive as particularly bloated (no way a "shitload more"), and even then the bloatiest features - Avalon and a proper indexed search - are hard to dismiss as entirely a waste.

Besides, who here isn't running with 1gb of RAM or more on their main system? If you can accept my proposition that 1gb is more than most people need for Vista to run well, I don't even see what this argument is about. The plight of people who last bought a computer 3-4 years ago and might have to turn off Aero?

It'd be fair to say Avalon (probably responsible for the majority of extra RAM usage in Vista) is another way Vista more efficiently uses the RAM as cache.
Only it's a cache of useless trash, instead of my useful data.

for many users the performance difference of having 300mb instead of 500mb free on an idle system is not going to be particularly noticeable.
Not for anyone doing anything serious. And if you're not doing anything serious, you could be off with 512 MB RAM, which falls incredibly short for the Vista monster.

I mean free in the sense that OS X provides lots of frameworks for "free".
I'd rather pay for what I need, not for what Microsoft or Apple think I need. You don't buy your house fully equipped and decorated, do you?

using standard system databases that offer the advantage of being ubiquitous
Ubiquitous to Microsoft software. As if third party software didn't exist.

What are you talking about? You haven't said why I'm wrong, and from my perspective it seems like your opinions of Vista's memory usage and featureset haven't been inspired by actually using the OS as I have.
I tried a Windows Vista beta on a spare machine for laughs and shits. I laughed hard, but then got quickly annoyed at its stupidity and bloat, then I realized malware was not meant to be fun or useful, so I hard resetted it and blanked the disk to avoid possible side effects of Vista's malware.

Avalon and a proper indexed search - are hard to dismiss as entirely a waste.
Yes, it's a waste because it's full of stupid features for simple-minded users, 10% of which can be used in a productive environment for real, efficient work or even real, efficient entertainment (games, media, etc.). All they needed to do is to provide a decent command line interface and a decent system API and UI toolkit, and look at what they got. Bullshit bloatware full of non-functional crap, transparency, chrome, etc. And they expect me to classfy my (currently) 275000 files in my data-only volume by means of stupid clicks and drags?

Besides, who here isn't running with 1gb of RAM or more on their main system?
You said it yourself: main system. Other systems don't have to have that much RAM, and Vista is useless for them. And do you know why I equipped my main system with 1 GB of RAM and soon to be 2 GB? I didn't do it because I read on EasyPC magazine that it's what the cool dudes do. I did it because I needed it. And if I needed it, Vista wasting one third of it will render a previously useful, fit machine useless for what I want to do.

>>26
what exactly do you do with your computer?  What programs do you run?

>>26
Only it's a cache of useless trash, instead of my useful data.
I entirely disagree. Avalon, like Quartz, means a more responsive interface, particularly useful when apps are hanging or crashing. Stuff paints faster when you drag windows around. You get less graphical glitches. It makes Flip3D, taskbar thumbnails and possibly future UI features that are more useful (a third-party proper expose clone?) possible. Use an OS with a GPU-accelerated interface for a while and you'll find that it's generally a lot nicer. (It's also possible to disable this if you still can't move beyond your fanatical devotion to conserving every megabyte of RAM.)

Not for anyone doing anything serious.
Again, I disagree. Unless you're using heavy pro apps that you'd want more than 1gb for even on XP, Vista with 1gb is more than enough for pretty much everyone. You are talking out your ass, as you have had very limited experience with using Vista.

I'd rather pay for what I need, not for what Microsoft or Apple think I need.
Retarded. In both OS X and Vista, the included apps are often the most polished, lean and featureful, and both OSes freely allow you to ignore the bundled stuff and use alternatives in place of them. There is no loss to you if you don't run them, and a lot of benefit to you if you like them. Also this:

Ubiquitous to Microsoft software. As if third party software didn't exist.
Retarded and ignorant. Vista seems to be doing the OS X thing and establishing standard databases for data like the calendar, RSS data store, address book, photo gallery, movie\music library (through WMP), etc. When you bundle apps and features like Vista does, you create de facto standardised databases for the computer which other apps can build and extend upon. It's great on OS X, and I bet it'll be great on Vista as third parties begin to play with the possibiltiies that ubiqutious categorised, centralised databases bring to an OS.

I tried a Windows Vista beta on a spare machine for laughs and shits.
You don't seem to have used Vista much at all and I maintain that your comments reflect that. Vista is a decent OS, and a great upgrade from XP. It is not nearly as bloated as you say and its new features are not nearly as pointless as you say. I recommend that people at least give it a trial run, because you'll soon discover all this hyperactive shit about it requiring a 4ghz processor and 3x the RAM of XP has no basis in reality, and that it offers more than just glassy windows and weather widgets.

This is a Vista: it is made of usless GUI eyecandy and DRM crap

>>17

>lol discussing Vista = instafail
>you all lose...and thus I do too, but it was worth it

qft

>>29
This pretty much summarizes all that can be said about Vista, plain and simple.

Vista considered AIDS. Use at your own risk.

www.badvista.org

>>32
WAH WAH DRM HURTS MY FEELINGS AND IT'S NOT OPENSAUCE FUCK THIS GUYS I'M GOING BACK TO UBUNTU

>>33
Please do not, Ubuntu is non-Free.  I recommend gNewSense or any other FSF-endorsed GNU/Linux distribution.

>>34
Go and install some IceWeasel, communist.

>>32
WIN

On Sunday 17 December 2006 10:46 am, Paul Vriens wrote:
While investigating that (several hours up to now) I found (not 100%
sure though) that if an executable (like our setupapi_test.exe) has the
word setup in it and is not properly signed, Vista starts
complaining !!!
>
Just copying our setupapi_test.exe to paul.exe makes it possible to run
'paul.exe --list'.
>
Any ideas about the latter?

THIS THREAD HAS AIDS.
YOU ALL = FAIL

>>35
EAT COMMUNISM!!

DOS, MOTHERFUCKER.

DO YOU USE IT?