is vista really this bad?

[hoppa]

I've been running RC1 x64 for a couple weeks now on a brand new system and am having a pretty ****** experience. In fact, I'm just about to install XP fresh and shy away from vista for a good while. I have miserable stability on pretty much anything video related (7800 GT, w/ the nVidia 64bit forceware drivers). Oblivion, warcraft 3, quicktime, and divx movies all crash me. I have bootup issues as well: about 30% of the time, windows says my ethernet is unplugged, and I can't solve it unless I reboot. I also had a hell of a time getting sound to work, trying for 2 hours to get any of 3 (!) different sound sources to work: an old audigy, onboard AC97, or my prefered Envy24.

Is it just me having these stability issues? Should I be worried there is a faulty compenent in my brand new system rather than blaming it on windoze?

 

[flexy]

i have no problems so far, although i didnt test major apps yet like games etc.

Do you always use the "F8" option while booting to "allow unsigned drivers installation ? You need to do that on ebery boot, otherwise you have problems with as good as any 3rd party drivers. Run vista 64bit too here.

 

[HackThis]

Dont worry

Vista RC1 is very slow, utilizes too much memory and has way too many bugs. stick with Xp until the final editions arrive

 

[TG2]

Vistas not final yet, and Im sure the beta 64bit drivers are worse than the 32bit drivers.
Did Vista 32bit work better for you?

 

[hoppa]

I dunno, x64 RC1 was my first install, and likely my last until the final. I've reinstalled XP already and have had zero problems. Perhaps I should've played it safe with the 32bit, eh.

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: HackThis
Dont worry

Vista RC1 is very slow, utilizes too much memory and has way too many bugs. stick with Xp until the final editions arrive

While people claim this will change, I know it won't. My friends had copies of XP during the beta stage, sure it was far more unreliable than XP is now (though it could've been their systems) one thing that didn't change from the beta version and the final version of XP was the memory usage, it used the exact same amount of memory and XP RC1. With XPSP1/SP2 closing in at 256MB of memory usage just for staring at a blank desktop with seemingly nothing running, (512MB for vista) I don't see it changing anytime soon.

I wouldn't care AS MUCH about this memory usage if microsoft provided an option for users to run in 'lean mode' or allowed for thier OS' to be installed on older systems that had say only 64MB of ram and weren't functionally limited (like that one version they've released).

There isn't a true reason as to why you can't design an OS that scales on a wide variety of systems, if the OS can't run smoothly on older hardware then you can't call it an 'efficient' OS. I don't like having to upgrade my hardware to run an Operating system, it's funny how people have forgotten the whole damn point of an OS in the first place, a software layer to which a user runs applications ON TOP OF. Microsoft on the otherhand has turned it's OS into a bloated application in it's self and to answer the unspoken question, microsoft pee'd in my cheerios, thats why I've decided to eat eggs in the morning instead.

 

[hoppa]

Memory usage is one thing I'm hardly concerned about at all. (Until this recent boom) a 1gig stick of memory could be had for $80. I've got no problem having an OS that runs solidly at 40 gigs of ram, rather than having one that cuts corners and makes way at 100mb. I think 512 MB in 2007 is very fair. OTOH, instability is inexcusable. I do blame most of my problems on the NVidia drivers, but it is still pretty sad. When my sound got screwed up, I shouldn't have had to fiddle around with 3 different sources for 2 hours before finally just rolling back to fix it. IMO, Vista generated an unrecovable error, and had I not rolled back, I would've been permenantly stuck. The error not only screwed up the sound, but completely disabled windows update, too. Sh!tty.

It's funny how a fresh install of XP is actually a huge relief. Sure, I have to install more drivers to get everything running normally, but god, the installation process is so much simpler! Once I've got the 'net up and running, get display, sound, keyboard, mouse drivers. Reboot. Do a windows update, install key programs, reboot. That is pretty much it. I know I'm comparing a veteran 5 y/o OS here to a still beta one, but that beta was hell. Everything I read made it seem like Vista RC1 was super-stable, and was 99% of what the OS would eventually be, but that's not even close. I'd give it 50%, as to me, stability, simplicity, and reliability are everything. Vista had none of that. XP has it all.

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: hoppa
Memory usage is one thing I'm hardly concerned about at all. (Until this recent boom) a 1gig stick of memory could be had for $80. I've got no problem having an OS that runs solidly at 40 gigs of ram, rather than having one that cuts corners and makes way at 100mb. I think 512 MB in 2007 is very fair. OTOH, instability is inexcusable. I do blame most of my problems on the NVidia drivers, but it is still pretty sad. When my sound got screwed up, I shouldn't have had to fiddle around with 3 different sources for 2 hours before finally just rolling back to fix it. IMO, Vista generated an unrecovable error, and had I not rolled back, I would've been permenantly stuck. The error not only screwed up the sound, but completely disabled windows update, too. Sh!tty.

Heh, sounds like to me that you believe that in order to save ram usage, system stability has to be compromised, eh?

 

[hoppa]

Not at all! Quite the opposite, in fact. Ram usage can be salvaged to ensure system stability. Ram has a price; 30 day uptime does not.

 

[pcgeek11]

Maybe I am the luckiest X64 bit Vista RC1 user in town, but I have had no stability issues, no slowdowns etc. Biostar TForce6100 754 socket AMD 2800 Semperon, 1 Gig Ram, Nvidia 6200 Video Card with 128 MB Ram. All working with the detected and installed drivers from Windows Vista...

pcgeek

 

[postmortemIA]

I had decent experience but with 32-bit version. In fact, I'm running RC1 on my 3 machines, although XP is my main system. Your best bet is to keep XP on one partition, everything else is playing with nerves.

 

[bigdaddy51]

Running pretty good on my NF4 ,but you gotta remember, IT'S BETA and beta=buggy as hell and scarce drivers, even more so in 64 bit. I even loaded it on a 900 Duron with 512mbs and a 64mb video card, and it ran as good as Home. You are getting at least 6 months use for free, and after the business version is released, more drivers will soon become available.It's also hands on training for a small systems builder like me.

 

[Shawn]

Perfectly stable for me. I haven't seen a blue screen even once with Vista and I've been using it for about a month now. I am using the 32bit version though.

 

[flexy]

i dont think vista is slow. I am sure i could "tweak it down" like i did my XP pro (disabling services etc.)....but so far everything seems fast.

 

[Bateluer]

I'd surmise that a lot of stability problems around now are can be attributed to immature drivers.

 

[randym431]

RC1 is just something to play with. And it IS a beta. One thing I seen with my rc1 install, it actually for the first time with any windows os, rc1 had and installed all my hardware. Even the ATI HDtv wonder tuner card. I was shocked. No yellowed out items in devc mgr.

But... even though rc1 even installed my ati hdtv wonder, ati itself has no vista software to run the tuner yet.

 

[IceBreakerG]

Originally posted by: randym431
RC1 is just something to play with. And it IS a beta. One thing I seen with my rc1 install, it actually for the first time with any windows os, rc1 had and installed all my hardware. Even the ATI HDtv wonder tuner card. I was shocked. No yellowed out items in devc mgr.

But... even though rc1 even installed my ati hdtv wonder, ati itself has no vista software to run the tuner yet.

I have the ATI HDTV Wonder too. Check around on thegreenbutton.com forums for the Kram hack to get the analog tuner to work (its MUCH MUCH easier to get it to work in Vista than it is in XP MCE). I have it working in Vista MCE now. I don't need (want) ATI's software.

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: randym431
RC1 is just something to play with. And it IS a beta. One thing I seen with my rc1 install, it actually for the first time with any windows os, rc1 had and installed all my hardware. Even the ATI HDtv wonder tuner card. I was shocked. No yellowed out items in devc mgr.

But... even though rc1 even installed my ati hdtv wonder, ati itself has no vista software to run the tuner yet.

just use media center. it rocks.

 

[13Gigatons]

Vista will be a great OS in 2008. I can't wait to run it on a quad core machine with 8 GB of memory and whatever video is current.

 

[akshayt]

Why did you install the 64bit OS?

You should have installed just the 32bit OS at the moment.

 

[Snapster]

The x64 version of Vista is like the x64 version of XP, just not worth it due to the lack of mature drivers built for it. You can be lucky and have a stable setup, but most people are not so fortunate and have had many a headache in using it. I've messed around with most of the Vista builds and whilst I've not had any blue screens as yet although some of them were so buggy that they were not useable, but that's the point of betas right? RC1 so far has been very stable and good for me so far. The lack of my preferred virus scanner being able to install in Vista is a drawback at the moment, but I'm testing on a spare drive so I'm not worried if I have to kill it. Most games have worked, mainly in XPSP2 compatibility mode. Audio has been the biggest problem for most people due to moving the working of it from kernel space to user space and rebuilding the entire audio stack from scratch. onboard AC97 is particularly painful from what I've heard.

It's worth noting that these Vista releases are not checked/debug builds so don't expect them to get much faster in final release mode. Memory footprints have been almost what XP was for me so I'm not complaining too much. Although there are two schools of thought in this. Memory unused is memory wasted, and the other being that everything should be minimalistic as possible. If you are the later then you can turn everything you don't need off and be a minimalist.

Another thing I find funny around here is that most people are appalled at the price of vista, mainly because they are looking at Vista Ultimate which has everything (aero interface, domains, file encryption, sideshow, photogallery, moviemaker, media centre etc ).

 

[flexy]

>>>
The x64 version of Vista is like the x64 version of XP, just not worth it due to the lack of mature drivers built for it.
>>>

i think this comment is so not right. We should refrain from making statements based on our experience working with BETA builds..especially the "before RC1" builds.

Vista is STILL in beta respective the RC1 is evaluated RIGHT NOW by many people - so the apps/drivers will be ready ONCE VISTA GOES ON THE SHELVES.

Even big companies, just out of my head, Sun (Java), Diskeeper, Raxco, you name it are working on porting apps to Vista NOW, some x32 apps are already in beta and working on 64bit.....so its only a matter of time til we have mature apps and drivers. For sure in the next 3,4,5 or so months 'til we have vista.

I agree with the Audio (CREATIVE....argggghhh.....)...this is the only problem i have right now since i couldnt get my Audigy 2 value to produce ONE single tone But then i remembered i have onboard NF4 sound and this one works, i just never used it before.

Problem is that with Vista they implemented many changes regarding how the OS handles sound (AFAIK)..dropping DirectSound etc....and i hope that the creative people will come up with drivers "soon" <-- i mean that's what they get paid for ? They just cant afford NOT TO since vista wil be on every PC in the beginning of 2007 and it WILL replace XP.

And..btw...i do NOT expect "mature" drivers RIGHT NOW...this would just not make sense...many people even waiting for the final release of Vista with their programs/utilities...which is logical since NOONE knows what (and if) changes to Vista wil be done still.

You cant have "mature" 3rd party drivers knowing that there might be changes still in the OS over the next few months.

Either accept that and accept that you're dealing with BETA OS, Beta DRIVERS...but then do NOT make recommendations based on this, or just skip the whole beta/evaluation thing and wait 'til things are final.

 

[Mogadon]

Originally posted by: Snapster
It's worth noting that these Vista releases are not checked/debug builds so don't expect them to get much faster in final release mode. Memory footprints have been almost what XP was for me so I'm not complaining too much. Although there are two schools of thought in this. Memory unused is memory wasted, and the other being that everything should be minimalistic as possible. If you are the later then you can turn everything you don't need off and be a minimalist.

As in you have the same memory footprint with Vista as in XP? My memory usage with XP and nothing running bar antivirus is about 160MB, with X64 RC1Vista under the same conditions it's about 700MB. Sure I haven't tweaked Vista and have XP but still.

My experience with this OS so far has been pretty good, the only difficulty was getting my x-fi to work and after a little searching and swearing it now works without the need to hit F8 on every boot. All the rest of my hardware was detected automatically so I never even bothered with the nvidia driver (vid card is 7900GT) that people seem to be having problems with.

I haven't tried any major apps or games yet but seeing as how this is still a beta OS if i get any problems when i do try them i won't be surprised.

I tihnk it's pretty silly to bash Vista for being buggy when it's still a RC, that's the whole point of beta releases, to iron out the problems ... although, to be fair to MS, this seems to be a continuing case with their 'mature' products too ... .

 

[flexy]

>>>
Memory footprints have been almost what XP was for me so I'm not complaining too much.
>>>

i experimented a bit.

I am positive i can tweak down Vista a LOT...maybe even more than XP. Eg. shutting certain services down, disabling DWM etc.
Although i would strongly suggest getting another gig of RAM, otherwise what use has Vista if you "disable" most of its features because of a lack of ram.

Anyway..regarding memory HANDLING in general...we might get some POSITIVE surprises there since "they" say they improved memory/cache handling over XP. As of right now i can get a LITTLE bit more memory footprint as i have with XP Pro, but then i stil have many services running where i even dont know what they're good for