My Impression of Vista

[romerojpg]

I am am thinking of many options I want Vista, but hell if its still a little incompatible then it will bug me (and games). I can still get most PC's with XP on them, but it does seem strange to have to go back to XP. Vista is still having little niggles with many games and programmes I seem to want to use, I dont know how long it will take to sort them all out (if ever?).

I just remember the whole Serivce Pack 2 for XP problems, that took so long to get things up and running again it was scary, it was what a year before everything seemed to be fixed perfectly in some games and programmes.


Mind you Vista on my parents laptop isnt that bad, but it doesnt play games so that probibly why

I am still not sure about ever building a PC, I nearly started late last year but thought no. Will end up just getting a custom made one from a good place and pick good parts still that I know are quality (with plenty of advice from expert forums ) I am gonna spend a lot, so may as well get the best things for my cash, just hope the whole Direct X10 issues have started to be solved by then, well when some bloody games come out for it anyway.

[IronMonkey]

I just remember the whole Serivce Pack 2 for XP problems, that took so long to get things up and running again it was scary, it was what a year before everything seemed to be fixed perfectly in some games and programmes.

The only problems that arose from that were from people who didn't know how to properly maintain Windows XP-based PCs. Most people had absolutely no problems with the installation & usage of Service Pack 2.

I am gonna spend a lot, so may as well get the best things for my cash, just hope the whole Direct X10 issues have started to be solved by then, well when some bloody games come out for it anyway.

What issues have you heard about with Direct X 10 for gaming?

[romerojpg]

Service Pack 2 was a massive problem for me and millions of others, depended on your PC and what was inside it. I know how to make most things work (may take some time mind you) and if I dont I ask on forums and even they were struggling getting some things working at all. It messed up my pc and everything had to be wiped and reinstalled (twice). Even now some things still are not compatible properly with SP2, I dont have anything that I know of not working with it now, but it took ages for new drivers and patches to come out, far to long for some things.

I just got a new piece of kit, a netgear wireless dongle, its not fully SP2 compatible, its messed up some of my PC settings and the only way to get them back is to uninstall it. The only way to solve it from help I asked about is to uninstal it, or just suffer the little bugs. Bugger. Glad I wont have to use it much longer, as my PC will be gone soon fingers crossed.



Direct X10, Just the fact Direct X10 is a massive unknown still from what I can see, nothing to even test it on still from what I have read. So you may think you got a great card, then you get a direct x10 game and its not so good. I want one, but without new games to test them on its a bit odd to me, maybe in a few more months when some games turn up. I havent really seen a real life card for DX10 running mind you, I am just trying to read up on before I dive in and spend cash on one and Nvidea or ATI is another bitch to get past

[IronMonkey]

Nvidea or ATI is another bitch to get past

ATi.

P.S. Its actually "nVidia".

[Kurgan]

Direct X10, Just the fact Direct X10 is a massive unknown still from what I can see, nothing to even test it on still from what I have read.

This is actually one of my main issues with the new OS. Apparently, DX10 (and therefore Vista) will be needed to get the 'most' out of games. Cutting edge games like Halo 2 (a game which was released quite some time ago on the original Xbox) will only run on Vista, because it's so demanding.
If it didn't feel like such a forced upgrade, more people would be receptive. As time progresses, that feeling should subside, as Vista becomes a platform for certain exclusive games, but we're a ways from that point.

[romerojpg]

Halo Poo it should be called, it looks poor now from all the footage I have seen from the PC version, it was good a few years ago, times move on a lot.

Crysis is the game I am wanting to be able to play on my PC, not Vista exclusive either, making games Vista exclusive is one way to make a game flop hard, its never going to work in a million years.

Crysis looks staggering, blows anything I have ever seen away and if thats what Direct x10 gives you, thats what I want I would like the new ATI cards (when they come out as they look massive! 12 inches!!! and sound powerful) but fingers crossed all Direct x10 cards can play such a game well, fingers crossed anyway.


I guess when a good quality games comes out and shows us why we need Vista then we may be impressed, but for now I havent got a clue like most people fear the Unknown



But for now Crysis looks mindblowing (graphically and physically)

Jut look at the trees fall about best footage ever.

http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=5870

[EvaUnit02]

LOL, my Vista installation died and it stuffed my XP installation as well. I had accidently put the machine into sleep mode, next thing I know, Vista is dead.

XP ain't forwards compatible with DX10, so if you're gamer it's not a question of if you're going to upgrade to Vista but when. The Shader Model 4.0 effects look amazing (to see Shader Model 4.0 in-action just looks at Unreal Engine 3.0 powered games on Xbox 360 like Gears of War and Mass Effect), so I'll have to get a DX10 card eventually. Will probably wait for a mid-range ATi R600 chipset card. ATi already have experience with unified architecture since they worked on the the Xbox 360's GPU. The 8 series is Nividia's first stab at the technology.

Crysis is the game I am wanting to be able to play on my PC, not Vista exclusive either, making games Vista exclusive is one way to make a game flop hard, its never going to work in a million years.

Yes, cuz too many people have DX9 cards. But you won't get all the awesome DX10 effects if you run it in XP (w/ DX9.0c) so I don't really see the point in even bothering to buy it you're not going to run it in Vista with a DX10 card.

[romerojpg]

So was your duel boot wesily fixed? how long did it take etc..? did you lose anything?


From what I saw the Unreal engine in Gears of War isnt even close to what we get with DX10, they stripped many of the fancy effects out and saved them for PCs but until we see it with out own eyes they could be exadurating


Depends how much difference thee is between DX9 and 10, no one really knows what the difference will be as its not as if they are showing us to our faces, as most game develpers aint saying yet.

So it may not be worth getting Vista at all if the difference is small, and some people will refuse to get Vista as if they love games and there old games still dont run perfect they never will until its all sorted, esspecially if they are total game freaks who want to play some older games which wont look better on Vista or DX10 anyway

[EvaUnit02]

So was your duel boot wesily fixed?

I could've easily fixed it if either of my Vista or XP installation discs had Repair Install, but they didn't. I booted up Linux (Knoppix) and formatted the partitions. I'm now running XP 32-bit and XP x64 in dual boot, Vista ain't going back on until A. SP1 is released, or B. I buy a game which requires Vista.

how long did it take etc..?

It took a couple hours at most to fix.

did you lose anything?

Nope, all my important stuff is on dedicated storage partitions.

[romerojpg]

Thats some hastle for you when it goes tits up.

[bradavon]

I saw the blue screen on windows 98 all the time, but cant really recall seeing it on XP EVER. And I have ALOT of programs.

It definitely occurs but looks very different (other than being blue with white still). I've had it for sure but nowhere near as many times as the 9x code base.

As for ME it's probably the most underrated OS ever, a bit of a waste of time but easily better than what came before. Removing DOS real-mode driver support was always a good idea.

[EvaUnit02]

As for ME it's probably the most underrated OS ever, a bit of a waste of time but easily better than what came before. Removing DOS real-mode driver support was always a good idea.

Nah, since it was still a "fake 32-bit" OS sitting on top of 16-bit DOS, so it was just hidden and was easily brought back to the surface thanks to hacks. Restoring the compatibility with loads of games which were otherwise broken. Removal of the real mode DOS driver from the Win9x architecture would've been impossible .

ME was just was shitty as 95 and 98, I still got BSODs all the time.

The NT-based OS BSODs are called Stop Errors, there was a higher chance of getting them if you were foolish enough to install 2000/XP onto a FAT32 partition. Running OSes on FAT32 was terrible, always having to run Scandisk to fix faults on the fucking thing. The only use for FAT32 these days if for either A. portable media storage or B. moving/using files between totally different OS architectures without additional access hassles.

[romerojpg]

When do Microsoft expect Vista to be working if they think we will all wait for Service Pack 1 thats a joke, as really reading all over the net it isnt exactly the super OS I was expecting it to be. In fact the amount of people who are complaining about problems with hardware, software, games etc.. is massive. Loads seem to just give up and go back to XP, which does sort of defeate the point of a new spanking OS.

Games seem so unstable its acctually insane, most the pro gamers esspecially seem to be esspecially pissed off and go straight back to XP, if they even went to Vista at all. Still them lot have loads of cash and time on their hands anyway people like me dont know as much as experts, so its harder for me to decide what to get.

[EvaUnit02]

One thing that did fuck me off in my approximate 3 hour experience with Vista (before it died) was the constant nag dialogue boxes. When I eventually do reinstall that fucker (once it is no longer unstable shit), UAC (User Account Control) will have to be silenced, temporarily at least until everything is set up how I want it.

[romerojpg]

Yeah them boxes are a pain, I have left them on for my parents PC, as hell in some small way they at least make you read something. I think I would just turn them off instantly when I get Vista, too may clicks for me, pointless clicks at that.

[bradavon]

ME was just was shitty as 95 and 98, I still got BSODs all the time.

Of course. I was just saying it (Games aside maybe) was a step forward, unlike the popular opinon. Completely unneeded though.

I remember over that period MS brought a new OS out every year, nuts:

1. Windows 95 - 1995
2. Windows 95 SP2 (better known as OSR2) - 1996
3. Windows NT - 1996
3. Windows 98 - 1998
4. Windows 98 SE - 1999
5. Windows 2000 - 2000
6. Windows ME - 2000/1
7. Windows XP - 2002

The original plan was for Windows 2000 to be Windows XP but it was too soon to kill the 9x code base. Windows 2000 is more user friendly because of this.

The NT-based OS BSODs are called Stop Errors, there was a higher chance of getting them if you were foolish enough to install 2000/XP onto a FAT32 partition.

People did that? I went straight to NTFS when I installed XP.

Running OSes on FAT32 was terrible, always having to run Scandisk to fix faults on the fucking thing.

It was necessary to overcome the restrictions of FAT16 but you're right you had to forever run Scandisk to fix the "free disk space" bug.

[bradavon]

When do Microsoft expect Vista to be working if they think we will all wait for Service Pack 1 thats a joke

There's no way everyone is waiting for SP1. When people upgrade their PCs this year they'll get Vista (most upgrade the whole PC).

If you think it was any different when Windows 95 and Windows XP came out you're well mistaken. It's exactly the same problem when the OS is changed significantly.

I'll be running Vista in about about a months time. I can't wait. I will be getting it pre-installed so fingers crossed driver issues won't be problem. Most security software is now Vista Ready and as for printer drivers etc.... I'll be buying a new printer so again it shouldn't be a problem.

Vista SP1 is scheduled for November I believe but by Summer all this talk of incompatibility will be over.

as really reading all over the net it isnt exactly the super OS I was expecting it to be.

True a lot of the big changes were dropped, such an entirely new File System (which would've caused so many compatibility issues) but the fact is it is still vastly improved.

It's not life changing in the way 98 to XP is but is still a solid upgrade.

In fact the amount of people who are complaining about problems with hardware, software, games etc.. is massive. Loads seem to just give up and go back to XP, which does sort of defeate the point of a new spanking OS.

Like I said it was EXACTLY the same with Windows 95 from Windows 3.1 and Windows XP from Windows 98.

Many at the start had to rely on dodgy Windows NT 4.0 drivers under Windows XP. It did help that Windows 2000 had been out a while though.

Games seem so unstable its acctually insane, most the pro gamers esspecially seem to be esspecially pissed off and go straight back to XP, if they even went to Vista at all.

I guess I'm lucky I don't play Computer Games then.

One thing that did fuck me off in my approximate 3 hour experience with Vista (before it died) was the constant nag dialogue boxes. When I eventually do reinstall that fucker (once it is no longer unstable shit), UAC (User Account Control) will have to be silenced, temporarily at least until everything is set up how I want it.

MAC OS X has this exact same approach but I hear MS have been fools and shown UAC prompts for virtually everything. Unlike MAC OS X where you only see them when it's serious.

The scary thing is if you turn off UAC you're also turning off IE7's new Protective Layer too. Great idea that one!

I'll leave it on at first and see how much it annoys me. I'm hoping after all my apps are on I won't see it very often. The problem with so many prompts is people simply click YES/OK making them completely pointless. My Dad does that one most of the ZoneAlarm prompts, he barely ever reads them.

Yeah them boxes are a pain, I have left them on for my parents PC, as hell in some small way they at least make you read something.

In XP they are few and fair between. If you mean Security ones they're there for a reason.

Security prompts are fair from pointless. You need to understand and at least read them though.

[romerojpg]

Nope the new security pop ups in Vista are for everything, its staggering they expect us to take it all in!

I got maybe 50 of them in an hours use on my parents Vista machine, pretty pathetic to have that many, and pointless as most were about bugger all and very, very worthless. They just confuse normal people.

You must not have used Vista yet? they are starggingly irratating and you either put up with them, or turn them off and risk a problem down the line maybe, either way its a loose situation from what I have read.

[Kurgan]

This has probably been posted before, but it seems to be quite apt at this juncture.

[romerojpg]

This has probably been posted before, but it seems to be quite apt at this juncture.

Yup that sums it up exactly! its a joke and Vista is a joke too.

[EvaUnit02]

Yup that sums it up exactly! its a joke and Vista is a joke too.

...and you having to upgrade to that joke is inevitable.

That's like the first Get a Mac ad which ain't a load of crap.

Also Yank actors > Pom actors (guys from Peep Show), Christopher Gorham is an underrated actor.

[romerojpg]

I hate the Mac ads, sick to death of them they are so pathetic. Saw 3 of them in the cinema last night alone!

[EvaUnit02]

I remember over that period MS brought a new OS out every year, nuts:

1. Windows 95 - 1995
2. Windows 95 SP2 (better known as OSR2) - 1996
3. Windows NT - 1996

Bringing out NT4 a year after 95 was justified. An entirely different OS architecture was given 95's user friendly GUI. Plus they were both aimed at very different markets - NT for business were the added stability was paramount, 95 for the home consumer market where backwards compatibility mattered.

I hated NT4.0, nothing worked in it and was missing some of the great features from 9x like the Device Manager. Installation was pretty un-user friendly too, heavily command line based. 2000 was great, brought the product lines closer together.

BTW you forgot the further 95 OSR2 revisions. They should've issued those changes in the OSR2s as Service Packs. Only OEM buyers getting them wasn't fair.

You also forgot 98SE and the further editions of XP and 2003 (you're counting 95 and 95 OSR2 as different OSes afterall). XP Media Center, XP x64 Edition (which is my primary OS, I still don't see what the big deal bout 64-bit processing is though), Windows XP 64-bit (this was phased out and replaced with the x64 edition for the x86-64 architecture. The processors that used this edition are still supported by a couple Win2003 editions), Win2003

The NT-based OS BSODs are called Stop Errors, there was a higher chance of getting them if you were foolish enough to install 2000/XP onto a FAT32 partition.

People did that? I went straight to NTFS when I installed XP.

Yes, some indeed did. Eg those who upgraded from 9x.

[romerojpg]

I am suprised you lot have been using PC's for that long myself, you must have started using them in nappies.

[EvaUnit02]

I am suprised you lot have been using PC's for that long myself, you must have started using them in nappies.

Commodore 64 and XT (8086) FTW.