64Bit Vista is great

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

I guess Vista is OK for people who know little about comptuers, and just want something simple that works out of the box.

That's right, but you'll also find that no one would want batter their brains for too long to make something work. I see Linux forums are full of theories to fix problems. And What BSOD's are you talking about? if you think you are an advanced user you'd have used Vista Upgrade Advisor to find out whether your hardware/software is compatible with Vista before installing it. Why install on an incompatible machine and yell at MS for doing it.

The problems with vista were usually driver and software compatibility, it is 3rd party vendor incompetence not MS. However these problems are very rare now.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I recently made the switch from 64-bit Vista to Ubuntu 8.04 and have been quite happy with it so far. Now I just run my games in Vista (which is why I bought it to begin with, then DX10 turned out to be a bust).

Vista is incredibe bloat compared to linux. With numerous apps running, I only use around 400mb of RAM. With Vista I needed at least 3gb of RAM for equivalent system responsiveness. Ubuntu also boots up and shuts down faster, never needs defragmenting, and does not need a virus scanner or all of those annoying security features in Vista.

Just my opinion as a user that has switched.

There have been some downfalls, but overall I'm happier with Ubuntu than I was with Vista.

Wait until a kernel update breaks Ubuntu and come back and tell us how satisfied you are.

Ubuntu has way too many little things that drive me nuts for it to be my main desktop. Setting up Ubuntu to burn MP3's at an acceptable bit rate requires editing a damn string instead of simply clicking a button with your mouse.

I'm not putting down Ubuntu, just pointing out it has it's flaws too.

Ubuntu has made up for its lack of polish with its solid stability and super-fast performance.

I've lost count of the Vista BSODs I've seen on my system.

The difference I notice is that in Ubuntu I'm forced to learn a bunch of stuff, and the overall setup just takes longer. That said, my OS is far more customized that Windows ever could be.

I guess Vista is OK for people who know little about comptuers, and just want something simple that works out of the box.

Personally, Ubuntu 8.04 and Windows 2000 are my two favorite OS'es of all time. If Macs weren't prohibitively expensive, I'd probably just go with them. :beer:

Very hard to get a BSOD on my Vista x64,btw if you type reliability monitor in start search box you can get a list of the causes of crashes,ie driver etc...very handy feature,if you are getting that many crashes then the problem is going to be driver or something more serious rather then the OS itself.


As to freeware software the other guy meantioned,I use normal things like CCleaner,Defraggler,uTorrent etc... all run 100% stable in Vista x64.

I guess Vista is OK for people who know little about comptuers, and just want something simple that works out of the box.

Personally, Ubuntu 8.04 and Windows 2000 are my two favorite OS'es of all time. If Macs weren't prohibitively expensive, I'd probably just go with them.

Fact is Vista is way superior to ubuntu for my gaming needs,it also solid and very reliable on my PC,nice to forget about BSODs that I had now and then with XP(especially in the early days),as to my favourite OS well its good old DOS 6.22 .

Ubuntu has made up for its lack of polish with its solid stability and super-fast performance.

You have just described Vista x64 on my PC ,but with polish .

 

[nerp]

Haven't had a BSOD in years. People have flaky hardware or bad drivers or insist on installing software that breaks stuff.

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I recently made the switch from 64-bit Vista to Ubuntu 8.04 and have been quite happy with it so far. Now I just run my games in Vista (which is why I bought it to begin with, then DX10 turned out to be a bust).

Vista is incredibe bloat compared to linux. With numerous apps running, I only use around 400mb of RAM. With Vista I needed at least 3gb of RAM for equivalent system responsiveness. Ubuntu also boots up and shuts down faster, never needs defragmenting, and does not need a virus scanner or all of those annoying security features in Vista.

Just my opinion as a user that has switched.

There have been some downfalls, but overall I'm happier with Ubuntu than I was with Vista.

Ubuntu isn't bad, but I had a decidedly different experience with it on my laptop. It's a 3 year old Pentium M 1.6 Ghz machine with 2 GB of RAM. Without going into the driver issues I had and just talking pure performance, Boot times under Ubuntu were a touch longer than under Vista Business (and the Vista install was loading more than the Linux install) and I had to use the basic Ubuntu UI. If I tried to use any of the special effects it was terrible. On the other hand Aero runs exceptionally well on the same laptop. I can even run EverQuest 2 on "balanced" settings.

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: Doomer
Somebody please let me in on the secret. I just loaded Vista x64 on a system that was running XP flawlessly and I have opened up Pandoras Box. I'm getting program crashes out the ying yang. Rainbow Six Vegas causes a blue screen dump and won't run period, even after it updated itself. I imported my emails from OE 6 and every time I try to access the imported folders, blam, it crashes Windows Mail. It does this evey single time. I've had tons more problems and at this point I don't know whether to go back to XP or give 32bit Vista a try.

System Spec -

Athlon x64 5200+
Gigabyte M57SLI-S4
4 gig RAM
Geforce 7900GS
Plus the rest of the trimmings.

I've run Diags on the memory and HD's and they come up clean.

btw: This is Vista x64 sp1 I'm running.

Are you Overclocking?

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Ubuntu has made up for its lack of polish with its solid stability and super-fast performance.

I've lost count of the Vista BSODs I've seen on my system.

The difference I notice is that in Ubuntu I'm forced to learn a bunch of stuff, and the overall setup just takes longer. That said, my OS is far more customized that Windows ever could be.

I guess Vista is OK for people who know little about comptuers, and just want something simple that works out of the box.

Personally, Ubuntu 8.04 and Windows 2000 are my two favorite OS'es of all time. If Macs weren't prohibitively expensive, I'd probably just go with them. :beer:

To be honest with you, Vista seems faster on this hardware than both Ubuntu and Fedora. (I'm dual booting Fedora 9 right now so I decided to mention it too.) Vista boots between 30-45 seconds on this desktop where both Ubuntu and Fedora take slightly over a minute to boot. Vista is slightly more stable than both of those distros too. But then again this is just my impression, just as it is your impression that Ubuntu is faster. The truth is that both do the same task in about the same amount of time overall. Little things like really fast boot times and how fast a program opens can alter your perception of how fast a operating system is. Vista beats most Linux distros hands down because of Readyboot and Superfetch doing their things.

That said I do find Debian to be actually faster than Vista, Ubuntu or Fedora. But then again, they optimize the code for servers first and refuse to include everything including the kitchen sink with the operating system. Sometimes less is more.

Customization is useless if you are limited in what you can do with your PC because a particular program you need does not work in Linux. Many times the free software and open source alternatives are lacking in options and functionality that people need. Case in point is both Open Office and The Gimp when compared to Microsoft office and Adobe Photoshop. You are not as limited with Vista as you are with Linux in this area, even on the 64 bit version of Vista. This is a huge reason that Ubuntu is not a panacea for many of the real and perceived problems with Vista. The only operating system that is a true alternative to Vista is XP.

I do like messing with Linux and find it a fun hobby to tinker with the operating system to see what limits I can push it and myself. I just find to many little things that make it inconsistent to use as my main desktop.

Don't get me started on Macs. :evil:

 

[PG]

I just recently found out that Palm has no 64-bit driver for the USB sync cable for their products and I doubt they ever release one.
So if you use a palm device you need to get a bluetooth adapter and hope you can get that figured out. Thanks Palm.:|

 

[Muadib]

Originally posted by: PG
I just recently found out that Palm has no 64-bit driver for the USB sync cable for their products and I doubt they ever release one.
So if you use a palm device you need to get a bluetooth adapter and hope you can get that figured out. Thanks Palm.:|

Did you try installing the 32-bit driver? I have a USB to serial cable that has no 64-bit driver, however the 32-bit xp driver works fine.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: soonerproud
Vista beats most Linux distros hands down because of Readyboot and Superfetch doing their things.

There's a program you can get called "PreLoad" for Linux that does essentially the same thing as SuperFetch (plus you can tweak it if you want).

There's also a small program for Linux that does what ReadyBoost does, but I can't be bothered. I noticed zero difference in Vista with ReadyBoost enabled, plus I'm convinced that it will burn out the flash drive.

To me the low memory usage on Linux is the deciding factor. I'm platform-limited to 3gb, so Ubuntu really breathes some new life into my dated hardware.

For me the performance between Ubuntu and Vista is quite comparable. Perhaps the fad of something new is what's keeping me away from Windows lately. *shrug*

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: nerp
Haven't had a BSOD in years. People have flaky hardware or bad drivers or insist on installing software that breaks stuff.

You also don't have an Nvidia 8-series graphics card running on Vista64.:light:

For at least six months after the launch of Vista I was plagued with regular BSODs.

It's not user error. The #1 cause of Vista BSODs has been NV drivers.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: soonerproud
Vista beats most Linux distros hands down because of Readyboot and Superfetch doing their things.

There's also a small program for Linux that does what ReadyBoost does, but I can't be bothered. I noticed zero difference in Vista with ReadyBoost enabled, plus I'm convinced that it will burn out the flash drive.

Though both are related, Readyboot is a different process than Readyboost. You don't need a USB flash drive to take advantage of Readyboot. Readyboot relies on the readyboost service however, so disabling it will affect system startup times.

Sorry if i confused you.

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: nerp
Haven't had a BSOD in years. People have flaky hardware or bad drivers or insist on installing software that breaks stuff.

You also don't have an Nvidia 8-series graphics card running on Vista64.:light:

For at least six months after the launch of Vista I was plagued with regular BSODs.

It's not user error. The #1 cause of Vista BSODs has been NV drivers.

I actually do. 8400GS running error free on my Opty 180. I need to update my sig. It's on x64 now and has been for about 3 months pumping MCE goodness.

 

[Doomer]

Yep, clean install. All drivers are current. Obviously, something is wrong but so far I haven't been able to nail it. I've had a couple of those BSOD flash reboot events and tons of crashes. It's clever how MS has disguised error reporting as "click here to check for a solution on line." Do they really think people are that stupid? Wait, maybe they are.

Anyway, I'll give it a little more time but as of now, XP is looking better than it ever has.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: nerp
Haven't had a BSOD in years. People have flaky hardware or bad drivers or insist on installing software that breaks stuff.

You also don't have an Nvidia 8-series graphics card running on Vista64.:light:

For at least six months after the launch of Vista I was plagued with regular BSODs.

It's not user error. The #1 cause of Vista BSODs has been NV drivers.

I'm running Vista64 Business with a 8800gt, and I haven't had a gfx BSOD yet. I haven't had too many BSODS in general. Most of them have been from pushing my hardware too hard.


Edit:
For formatting problem(must have bumped my mouse while typing :^P)

 

[coreyb]

The only people I know who have had problems with vista were using pirated versions.

 

[coloumb]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: nerp
Haven't had a BSOD in years. People have flaky hardware or bad drivers or insist on installing software that breaks stuff.

You also don't have an Nvidia 8-series graphics card running on Vista64.:light:

For at least six months after the launch of Vista I was plagued with regular BSODs.

It's not user error. The #1 cause of Vista BSODs has been NV drivers.

I'm starting to believe it's not a driver issue - rather misrepresentation from the vendors who sell the overclocked video cards.

I bought an EVGA OC 8800GTS card and encountered the notorious driver reset [bsod] issue almost a few times a week for the past year.

when I read that someone downclocked their card - I decided to give it a try. And wouldn't you know it, simply downclocking the core clock from 572 to around 550 = no BSOD's [ie: driver reset problem].

I've got a [free] copy of Vista 64 ultimate sitting on top of my desk that I've been itching to install..and might do since I've got an extra HD laying around.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I recently made the switch from 64-bit Vista to Ubuntu 8.04 and have been quite happy with it so far. Now I just run my games in Vista (which is why I bought it to begin with, then DX10 turned out to be a bust).

Vista is incredibe bloat compared to linux. With numerous apps running, I only use around 400mb of RAM. With Vista I needed at least 3gb of RAM for equivalent system responsiveness. Ubuntu also boots up and shuts down faster, never needs defragmenting, and does not need a virus scanner or all of those annoying security features in Vista.

Just my opinion as a user that has switched.

There have been some downfalls, but overall I'm happier with Ubuntu than I was with Vista.

Ubuntu takes up less memory, but vista uses it better.

I havent found ubuntu to be any more responsive vs. Vista even on 1GB systems.

Ubuntu has always booted and shut down much slower than Vista on any system I've tried.

Ubuntu doesnt need a defragger, but its method of placing files disk has its own disadvantages.

That annoying security feature (UAC) is also present in ubuntu, and with it on in Vista, I've felt perfectly confident running without a virus scanner knowing most viruses just cant get past it if I don't click OK to let them.

So my experience is basically the opposite of yours.

 

[mb]

I've had no problems with my 8800gts and Vista.

 

[PG]

Originally posted by: Muadib

Originally posted by: PG
I just recently found out that Palm has no 64-bit driver for the USB sync cable for their products and I doubt they ever release one.
So if you use a palm device you need to get a bluetooth adapter and hope you can get that figured out. Thanks Palm.:|

Did you try installing the 32-bit driver? I have a USB to serial cable that has no 64-bit driver, however the 32-bit xp driver works fine.

The Palm Desktop comes with the driver and is 32 bit only, so yes, everyone who installed the Palm Desktop has tried the 32-bit driver and it does not work.

http://forums.palm.com/palm/bo...tsync&message.id=33037

 

[Mucker]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I guess Vista is OK for people who know little about comptuers, and just want something simple that works out of the box.

Good for people who know quite a lot about personal confusers too