Jump to content
Tuts 4 You
Sign in to follow this  
Teddy Rogers

Killed My First Installation Of Vista64...

Recommended Posts

syk071c

strangely enough i did as much as i could with XP to make it look like windows 98.. i don't need the fancy memory hungry interface just the stability.. i will probably wait for at least Vista service pack 2 before updating..

Share this post


Link to post
Sonny27

Wow, is there something about computer interior and kernel you DON

Share this post


Link to post
TiGa

Doesn't a debate like this arise any time a new version of Windows comes out?

How many people that are using XP today hated it when it came out and vouched to never install it in their life? 98 or 2000 FOREVER!

It seems everybody is pointing out that Vista will become the new standard in a few years, whether they want it or not.

If the next computer that you buy most probably will come with Vista installed, why not start to learn it now and not be left behind?

This has absolutely nothing to do with Vista but why would changing the standard for all monitors to USB 3.0 or FireWire would be less troublesome than HDMI?

Even Home Theatres (HDTV) today accept the conversion from HDMI to DVI, it is backwards-compatible.

There are also adapters to convert from DVI or HDMI to analog for computer monitors.

So if USB 3.0 was available tomorrow, can't plug a USB 3.0 monitor in a USB 2.0 port, even if it would be backwards-compatible.

An HDMI cable up to 15 meters in length transmits at a speed of 5 Gbps.

Ever compared the output quality between an analog and digital output?

TiGa

Share this post


Link to post
human

well when xp came out i was on 98 and had mmx200 overclocked to 266,mobo died after 3 months:P bought same used and xp wasnt good for my pc with 128mb, then i bought athon xp1700+ and installed both and when i compared power of xp vs 98 i choose xp to be my main OS. due it was faster, faster in games, not 16bit code mixed with 32bit, more stable. ctrl+alt+del for task menager doesnt freeze whole system, network was better working. and most of apps i use were already for xp, softice was runing only on new pure 32bit kernel with xp or 2k. so there was only one solution. with vista x64 its reverse nothing is rewritten yet for it, nothing works, most tools we use arent updated and never will, so we have to use xp or code own. vista is slower, takes, more ram. when i read that vista boots faster that makes me laugh. due they count time from loading to desktop after login, well in xp i can do that in 32 seconds and i can run total commander and all, with vista desktop is there but it still loads services, and total commander starts after 10s, and minute after login it still loads caches something. and c2d E6700 with 2gb ddr2 800 is too much to use vista.

Share this post


Link to post
cond0lence

Maybe this debate repeats on every new win now, but I think there were never ever such a amount of unsatisfied customers with new lappies and a bundled vista and it needs a second for a:

Let me guess you have vista? ;) The first time you can really skip the OS question when you talk with sb. today.

If you run at the moment xp there is really no point to switch. As long the actual amount of apps (or all the apps you use/want to use) has no min requirement like an installed vista or the hardware is compatible you know the driver issue. Surely xp is quite better than 9x, there was maybe no other win that was so crash resist I could remember, so I see no point for vista right now. The periphery is supported for xp, also possible to get in touch with Readyboost without vista. Ok, exept you are gamer and won't live without dx10 (another marketing gag).

I plan only the usage of a virtual vista soon, but a real installed, why?

Almost the same trouble M$ created with their office 2k7 including the somecalled but not XML standartized filetype. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Killboy

Well, I do see the point of getting Office 2007...

As for Vista, I kept thinking it's faster when you're playing games, that's what you get told anyway.

But when you look at games like Crysis you often see stuff like:

Minimum specs:

GFX: 9800 Pro (XP), X800 (Vista)

CPU: 2.8 Ghz (XP), 3.2 Ghz (Vista)

This is gay, why would I ever want to use Vista for gaming ??

I mean, it's the first Windows that has proper x64 support (XP 64 can pretty much be called a failed attempt) so I'll surely use it for movie editing and some other stuff...

But as for gaming and reversing, there's no reason to use Vista at all.

I don't need the fancy window style while gaming and it still uses resources in the background...

It just depends on your needs, my brother is using Vista for quite some time now and there's no reason for him to stick with XP.

He's not doing RE or playing games, so why bother with old and ugly XP :)

Edited by Killboy
bleh (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
zer0buRn

I killed my installion a while back ago. Like the others said its just slow atm I hope the service pack fixes a lot of those issues.

Share this post


Link to post
human

well like you can read on net vista sp1 doesnt improve anything, still copy of 23gb will take 133 days. whats funny its that xp sp3 seems a little faster than sp2 and lot faster than vista.

Share this post


Link to post
zer0buRn

that's ridiculous. i'll just stay with xp until it goes under like 98 or until ms can get their **** together and fix vista right

Edited by zer0buRn (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Blah

what zeroburn said :)

Share this post


Link to post
Teddy Rogers

I don't see what the problem is with Vista (I am referring to Vista64), really I don't think it is as bad as everyone makes out these days but then I guess you could argue I've got a new shiny top-end system so I don't notice so much the slow downs and OS consumption.

Anyway... I have 8 GIG of memory and after booting up and Vista settled caching everything it consumes about 1.5GIG of memory. I know on a similar system with just 2GIG of memory it consumes about 700-800MB. I read that memory handling and caching in Vista is supposed to be a lot superior to that of XP. Maybe someone has a link with a comparison of the two or something?

Ted.

Share this post


Link to post
Killboy

What do you need 8 GB RAM for :o

When I ordered 4GB I wondered if I actually need it and thought I'd better get 4 as long as its that cheap...

Mind sharing your system specs ? I'd love to see that :D

Share this post


Link to post
human

i have 2gb and its perfectly fine for me, some people have 4gb for music programs due they use 192khz samples and lot of them. 8gb and more its good for servers

Share this post


Link to post
Teddy Rogers
What do you need 8 GB RAM for :o

It is excellent for running multiple virtual machines and simply just having more stuff going on at the same time. Hence getting a Quad core.

Mind sharing your system specs ? I'd love to see that :D
	  Operating System								  Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate 6.0.6000 (Vista Retail)
CPU Type QuadCore Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, 2400 MHz (9 x 267)
Motherboard Name Gigabyte GA-965P-S3 (3 PCI, 3 PCI-E x1, 1 PCI-E x16, 4 DDR2 DIMM, Audio, Gigabit LAN)
Motherboard Chipset Intel Broadwater P965
System Memory 8192 MB (DDR2-667 DDR2 SDRAM)
BIOS Type Award Modular (07/17/07)
Video Adapter ATI Radeon HD 3870 (512 MB)
3D Accelerator ATI RV670 XT
Audio Adapter ATI HD 2xxx HDMI @ ATI RV670 - High Definition Audio Controller
Audio Adapter Realtek ALC888/S/T @ Intel 82801HB ICH8 - High Definition Audio Controller [B-0]

Ted.

Share this post


Link to post
Loki

Nice! I thought my E6600 Core2 was powerful with 2GB RAM and a 8800GT.

Blows mine out of the water!

Share this post


Link to post
dR.cARBOn
Operating System Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate 6.0.6000 (Vista Retail)

CPU Type QuadCore Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, 2400 MHz (9 x 267)

Motherboard Name Gigabyte GA-965P-S3 (3 PCI, 3 PCI-E x1, 1 PCI-E x16, 4 DDR2 DIMM, Audio, Gigabit LAN)

Motherboard Chipset Intel Broadwater P965

System Memory 8192 MB (DDR2-667 DDR2 SDRAM)

BIOS Type Award Modular (07/17/07)

Video Adapter ATI Radeon HD 3870 (512 MB)

3D Accelerator ATI RV670 XT

Audio Adapter ATI HD 2xxx HDMI @ ATI RV670 - High Definition Audio Controller

Audio Adapter Realtek ALC888/S/T @ Intel 82801HB ICH8 - High Definition Audio Controller [b-0]

Really gr8

Share this post


Link to post
Killboy

The only thing my crappy PC seems to be better at, is my soundcard.

Got a Soundblaster ZS2 for 50 bucks, not sure how much more performance it brings, but according to a gaming mag a decent soundcard can reduce CPU load for SFX in games from 20 (onboard) to 1-2 percent.

Other than that, my PC sucks :D

Even my new PC (just need the GFX card to arrive :-/) seems pretty lousy compared to that.

My new box looks like this:

E6750, 4GB DDR2 1066, 8800GT, GigaByte GA-P35-DS3 (you cant go absolutely wrong with MBs as long as you choose a decent manufacturer)

However, I managed to get below 1000€...

Now... what did you pay for that machine of yours :wacko:

Edited by Killboy (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Loki

Thats a decent machine too :) Faster than mine and I can play UT3, Crysis (although not on MAX), bioshock and others at 1600x1050 as smoothly as you like.

I did splash out for a 22" widescreen LG monitor too though. Absolutely stunning. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Killboy
22" widescreen

Eeek! I could hardly afford the 17" one 4 years ago :x

It's okay though, there wouldn't be enough space for a bigger one on the desk anyway...

Argh, how I hate being a student :D

Share this post


Link to post
Loki

I treated myself to that one ;) Probably got the missus some flowers or something at the same time to ease the ear bashing.

Makes a huge difference though - I'd struggle to go back now.

Share this post


Link to post
Teddy Rogers

Oh! I forgot to mention I have a Che Mei 22", nothing special but it looks fantastic!

System cost a bit but not as much as I thought it would be when I costed everything. I wanted something to last a few years...

Ted.

Share this post


Link to post
human

teddy be happy as rumours say Milestone M1 (blackcomb also know as vienna) next version of windows aka 7 was send to key partners of microsoft. and maybe will be aviable in middle of 2009.

so before most of us leave xp, vista will be killed by next os:P

as i said earlier microsoft always does 2 types of same os, when second is better.

95-95 osr

98-98se

me-2k

xp-xpsp1 sp2 sp3

vista-vienna.

stilll i dont know why they have x86 and x64 build.

thats how they want to raise x64 usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Teddy Rogers

If they do I'll have to get over it and use it as another excuse to buy a whole new shiny system... :P

Ted.

Share this post


Link to post
Killboy

Yay :D

Just installed Vista 64 and it's working fine so far :)

Im not having any problems with drivers, the WLAN driver was installed by default, no need to install anything afterwards. It even came up with a window asking me if Vista should download and install the missing drivers for my Creative soundcard. I already love it :>

Share this post


Link to post
sammy

one word = UBUNTU

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...