Thanks EVERYBODY, especially ZENMASTER for his review. I have decided NOT to install Vista. I'll still consider installing it on my second HTPC.
I'm chiming in a bit late. But this might help.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1338
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1338
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I'd say only install Vista if your have 4 GB of memory cuase I have two GB right now, and it just isn't enough. I could play BF2 perfectly on XP, but not now.
I am running 4 gigs of DDR3 ...Vista 64 works great ...I dont care what others have said. Sooner or later you all will be on Vista...get used to it.
I'm running Vista Ultimate x64. Holy cow, on a Dual Xeon Workstation with 8GB of RAM and a 512MB Quadro and there are still times it lags out on me. Also, if the driver is not signed...forget it under x64. There is no override like in 32-bit.aimless wrote:
Go ahead and install Vista x64.
I'll get Vista if/when I get a video card and game that requires DX10. Until then, no.
Ugh... I'm using unsigned BETA drivers for my 8800GTX and it works just fine.462nd NSP653 wrote:
I'm running Vista Ultimate x64. Holy cow, on a Dual Xeon Workstation with 8GB of RAM and a 512MB Quadro and there are still times it lags out on me. Also, if the driver is not signed...forget it under x64. There is no override like in 32-bit.aimless wrote:
Go ahead and install Vista x64.
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
F11 during Vista boot = Turn off Driver Signing.462nd NSP653 wrote:
I'm running Vista Ultimate x64. Holy cow, on a Dual Xeon Workstation with 8GB of RAM and a 512MB Quadro and there are still times it lags out on me. Also, if the driver is not signed...forget it under x64. There is no override like in 32-bit.aimless wrote:
Go ahead and install Vista x64.
"No override"?
Are you qualified to use that Dual Xeon Workstation?
.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
So many fundamentalists with their bullshit ideas about how Vista is so crap, insecure, incompatible.
Shut up and go try it.
It's fine for gaming. It's excellent for music. It's perfect for word and shit ( new 2007 is sexy on Vista and more stable ). It's good for organising. It's safe. It may be slower and there are SOME incompatibilities, but they are far and few ( there are none with new PC systems ).
Shut up and go try it.
It's fine for gaming. It's excellent for music. It's perfect for word and shit ( new 2007 is sexy on Vista and more stable ). It's good for organising. It's safe. It may be slower and there are SOME incompatibilities, but they are far and few ( there are none with new PC systems ).
Zimmer wrote:
So many fundamentalists with their bullshit ideas about how Vista is so crap, insecure, incompatible.
Shut up and go try it.
It's fine for gaming. It's excellent for music. It's perfect for word and shit ( new 2007 is sexy on Vista and more stable ). It's good for organising. It's safe. It may be slower and there are SOME incompatibilities, but they are far and few ( there are none with new PC systems ).
Heres the awnser:
When Bf3 comes out
When Bf3 comes out
Maybe you should read that some of us did actually try it - and it is not fine for gaming. People don't invest in hardware for their rigs to sign up for a 15% gimp just so they can have an OS perfect for word and shit, which already works perfectly well in XP.Zimmer wrote:
So many fundamentalists with their bullshit ideas about how Vista is so crap, insecure, incompatible.
Shut up and go try it.
It's fine for gaming. It's excellent for music. It's perfect for word and shit ( new 2007 is sexy on Vista and more stable ). It's good for organising. It's safe. It may be slower and there are SOME incompatibilities, but they are far and few ( there are none with new PC systems ).
It looks nice, everyone admits it, but is that worth it? If you are just desk monkeying around then so be it, but if you actually use your hardware especially on the latest demanding games, then Vista is just not worth it. Dual boot, or just run XP and put a skin on XP if you want it to look purdy.
Did I ever claim, for one minute, that none of you had tried it? No. I never said everyone, nor did I try and claim it.[CANADA]_Zenmaster wrote:
Maybe you should read that some of us did actually try it - and it is not fine for gaming. People don't invest in hardware for their rigs to sign up for a 15% gimp just so they can have an OS perfect for word and shit, which already works perfectly well in XP.Zimmer wrote:
So many fundamentalists with their bullshit ideas about how Vista is so crap, insecure, incompatible.
Shut up and go try it.
It's fine for gaming. It's excellent for music. It's perfect for word and shit ( new 2007 is sexy on Vista and more stable ). It's good for organising. It's safe. It may be slower and there are SOME incompatibilities, but they are far and few ( there are none with new PC systems ).
It looks nice, everyone admits it, but is that worth it? If you are just desk monkeying around then so be it, but if you actually use your hardware especially on the latest demanding games, then Vista is just not worth it. Dual boot, or just run XP and put a skin on XP if you want it to look purdy.
It looks nice? I run Vista with basic skin. I am never going back to XP. Why? Because my computer is powerful enough to play the latest and most demanding games, plus, I like how everything is much more organised and safer in Vista.
Anyway, I use Ubuntu more.
Even still with your backpeddling, I still beg to differ on your stance of 'Vista = Sux for gaming'.[CANADA]_Zenmaster wrote:
Maybe you should read that some of us did actually try it - and it is not fine for gaming. People don't invest in hardware for their rigs to sign up for a 15% gimp just so they can have an OS perfect for word and shit, which already works perfectly well in XP.
It looks nice, everyone admits it, but is that worth it? If you are just desk monkeying around then so be it, but if you actually use your hardware especially on the latest demanding games, then Vista is just not worth it. Dual boot, or just run XP and put a skin on XP if you want it to look purdy.
DirectX 10, as it goes without saying, is probably one of the main incentives for people to get Windows Vista now or in the future- and that is pretty much exclusively a gaming motive and reason. I run every single game that I own just fine in Vista with no visible performance decreases or 'gimps' as you refer to them. If you have hardware and a machine that it as modern and new as Vista is, then you won't have any troubles at all. Obviously if you try to run brand-new games on the latest OS platform with a machine last upgraded in 2001... you're going to run into toughspots. But, the thing that the so-called 'Anti-Vista fundamentalists' do not grasp is that this is not a shortcoming of the Operating System; just the user using it.
I don't understand what you refer to with the '15% Gimp'. Are you referring to the memory caching and RAM-reserving functions in Windows Vista? If so, I would like to clearly state that these features pwn ass and are most welcome in my desktop-experience. If you invest in 2/4/8Gb of RAM, then you want your machine to use it! And, Vista doesn't 'gimp' out users by whoring up all this RAM at all... it merely saves it aside when it is not being used so that you can instantly-recall programs and windows without any delay or deterioration in your experience. Again, this anti-Vista sentiment boils down to a lack of user-understanding, - not a lack of convenience and quality from the Operating System itself.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
As ZenMaster said with the Bricopack, I also have the Vista Bricopack running (as a trial) and its awesome. Looks like Vista but using XP. Best of both OS
Your statements were pretty inflamatory for an admin thus my reply to you. I have no need to argue with you, you know very well what I meant.Zimmer wrote:
Did I ever claim, for one minute, that none of you had tried it? No. I never said everyone, nor did I try and claim it.[CANADA]_Zenmaster wrote:
Maybe you should read that some of us did actually try it - and it is not fine for gaming. People don't invest in hardware for their rigs to sign up for a 15% gimp just so they can have an OS perfect for word and shit, which already works perfectly well in XP.Zimmer wrote:
So many fundamentalists with their bullshit ideas about how Vista is so crap, insecure, incompatible.
Shut up and go try it.
It's fine for gaming. It's excellent for music. It's perfect for word and shit ( new 2007 is sexy on Vista and more stable ). It's good for organising. It's safe. It may be slower and there are SOME incompatibilities, but they are far and few ( there are none with new PC systems ).
It looks nice, everyone admits it, but is that worth it? If you are just desk monkeying around then so be it, but if you actually use your hardware especially on the latest demanding games, then Vista is just not worth it. Dual boot, or just run XP and put a skin on XP if you want it to look purdy.
It looks nice? I run Vista with basic skin. I am never going back to XP. Why? Because my computer is powerful enough to play the latest and most demanding games, plus, I like how everything is much more organised and safer in Vista.
Anyway, I use Ubuntu more.
Yes, of course! If your system can run it (2GB RAM ideal) then you won't regret it Used it since BETA and have had little to no problems. I can't think of any problems I have now, except for the fact that my icons in the start bar change sometimes (down at the right where the clock is: ie whenever I change one so that it is "hide", the next boot up makes it "hide when inactive" etc - can be annoying - that's about it though)
/agreesZimmer wrote:
So many fundamentalists with their bullshit ideas about how Vista is so crap, insecure, incompatible.
Shut up and go try it.
It's fine for gaming. It's excellent for music. It's perfect for word and shit ( new 2007 is sexy on Vista and more stable ). It's good for organising. It's safe. It may be slower and there are SOME incompatibilities, but they are far and few ( there are none with new PC systems ).
I read the 17 pages of SP1 changes and I must say that if it's true, it looks good.
Most drivers are updated towards vista now, so that shouldn't be a problem anymore (although still a few programs on 64 bit won't work).
Only problem is that 2% of all vista pc's crashed last weekend because of the windows updates (to prepare for SP1) and they went in an infinite restart-loop. As soon as that's fixed, I don't see any problem going to vista nowadays.
EXCEPT if your hardware isn't recent. You need 2 GB at least, and 4 GB ram preferred to run vista.
To the OP, if you are gonna keep XP anyway in dual boot, there is no reason not to try. XP still gives better performance in games, but I'm sure SP1 will decrease that difference. Also make sure you have the latest drivers.
About your music question, check if your sound card is vista compatible.
And to Zenmaster, I agree with most Pro-Cons, but I got to say, the search function of Vista kicks in my experience XP's ass. As does the help function (but don't think many people in tech section will use that). But that's my humble opinion and maybe wrong cause I only work with Vista at work (I repair pc's soft and hardware) so my only vista experience is with those machines for the last couple of months. (and my mums laptop that I rarely use).
so Sup, If you have vista install cd, which I thought I read you have, make a dual boot with XP indeed and check it out. (I'm assuming your hardware is enough for it). Try gaming on both to see if the XP is still needed.
Most drivers are updated towards vista now, so that shouldn't be a problem anymore (although still a few programs on 64 bit won't work).
Only problem is that 2% of all vista pc's crashed last weekend because of the windows updates (to prepare for SP1) and they went in an infinite restart-loop. As soon as that's fixed, I don't see any problem going to vista nowadays.
EXCEPT if your hardware isn't recent. You need 2 GB at least, and 4 GB ram preferred to run vista.
To the OP, if you are gonna keep XP anyway in dual boot, there is no reason not to try. XP still gives better performance in games, but I'm sure SP1 will decrease that difference. Also make sure you have the latest drivers.
About your music question, check if your sound card is vista compatible.
And to Zenmaster, I agree with most Pro-Cons, but I got to say, the search function of Vista kicks in my experience XP's ass. As does the help function (but don't think many people in tech section will use that). But that's my humble opinion and maybe wrong cause I only work with Vista at work (I repair pc's soft and hardware) so my only vista experience is with those machines for the last couple of months. (and my mums laptop that I rarely use).
so Sup, If you have vista install cd, which I thought I read you have, make a dual boot with XP indeed and check it out. (I'm assuming your hardware is enough for it). Try gaming on both to see if the XP is still needed.
I couldn't agree more.Bertster7 wrote:
/agreesZimmer wrote:
So many fundamentalists with their bullshit ideas about how Vista is so crap, insecure, incompatible.
Shut up and go try it.
It's fine for gaming. It's excellent for music. It's perfect for word and shit ( new 2007 is sexy on Vista and more stable ). It's good for organising. It's safe. It may be slower and there are SOME incompatibilities, but they are far and few ( there are none with new PC systems ).
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
de jappe thanks for your opinion. I already have 2 partitions so dual boot would be an option. My PC should be powerful enough (E8400, 2Gb ram, 8800Gt 512) for Vista. I would still play games in XP but for browsing the internet, listening to music, watching movies i would use Vista. The only thing I'm not certain is that my audio drivers don't support hardware rendering so I would like to know if there's any difference between hardware and software audio when listening to music.
Well, Vista indeed removed his audio hardware layer. Because of this you can't really use the EAX effects anymore I think, cause they use the audio center implemented in vista for it.
What's the difference between audio software and hardware rendering?
You can simplify it by saying that with software rendering you use your CPU more, while with Hardware your audio card does it for you. So hardware rendering takes some pressure of the CPU by letting the audio card do the audio work.
Will I hear a difference?
Hardcore gamers and audio-lovers will say yes.
I say: On "crappy" quality sound files (like MP3's) the difference will be so little you wont notice the difference.
In games, you might hear a difference if you are used to playing on hardware + eax quality, otherwise no. If a game sounds crappy, set it on software to regain the normal sound quality.
So conclusion: don't let this sound issue make the difference for choosing vista or not. You will not hear a difference when listening to your music and watching movies. Software rendering is pretty good these days and it's not that your CPU can't handle it. If you have a sound card, you won't use it as optimal as you would have in XP, but yeah...
If you are really into hardware rendering, check out OpenAL, (it's like openGL but then for audio). That still works with vista but I'm not familiar with the details.
What's the difference between audio software and hardware rendering?
You can simplify it by saying that with software rendering you use your CPU more, while with Hardware your audio card does it for you. So hardware rendering takes some pressure of the CPU by letting the audio card do the audio work.
Will I hear a difference?
Hardcore gamers and audio-lovers will say yes.
I say: On "crappy" quality sound files (like MP3's) the difference will be so little you wont notice the difference.
In games, you might hear a difference if you are used to playing on hardware + eax quality, otherwise no. If a game sounds crappy, set it on software to regain the normal sound quality.
So conclusion: don't let this sound issue make the difference for choosing vista or not. You will not hear a difference when listening to your music and watching movies. Software rendering is pretty good these days and it's not that your CPU can't handle it. If you have a sound card, you won't use it as optimal as you would have in XP, but yeah...
If you are really into hardware rendering, check out OpenAL, (it's like openGL but then for audio). That still works with vista but I'm not familiar with the details.
As far as I'm aware sp1 has been released, I've already installed itjsnipy wrote:
I'm going to give making Vista my primary boot vista once sp1 is released (Assuming VMware issues are resolved). But honestly, there is no real need atm, aside from it looks pretty.
@ OP I run Vista x64 and I've never had any problems with it, runs games as well as XP. I'd recommend it.
Let me say it like this:
When I have to go get a new laptop that has Vista on it, I am going to "upgrade" to XP Media Center as soon as I can
When I have to go get a new laptop that has Vista on it, I am going to "upgrade" to XP Media Center as soon as I can
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
I'm on Vista (x86)