Is it good to use Vista ?
-
Haven't come across any app that run in XP but gives problems in Vista, with the exception of driver related issues.
only two letters away from being an asset
You haven't used any apps that have data shared between multiple apps and/or users, while following M$'s former "best practices" guidelines of keeping said data in the Program Files folder. This particular problem took us weeks to figure out how to work around (after taking a few days to figure out that Vista's virtualization is evil). Still haven't figured out why Vista disables Aero for one of our programs (while no such problems are encountered for other programs that use the exact same core). Also, this isn't so much of an app problem, but my dev machine dual boots XP and Vista. XP lets me set the resolution on my monitor up to 1400x1050, which is about perfect. Vista maxes out at about 1024x768 (or was it lower than that? I don't switch over to Vista if I don't have to). Exact same hardware, but Vista doesn't work right. Go figure.
-
Yes, they have, the driver issues are mostly solved now, even 64 bit drivers are generally available.
Mostly solved? As posted in another reply earlier, my dev machine dual boots XP and Vista. XP lets me set the resolution on my monitor up to 1400x1050, which is about perfect. Vista maxes out at about 1024x768 (or was it lower than that? I don't switch over to Vista if I don't have to). Exact same hardware, but Vista doesn't work right. Go figure.
-
Mostly solved? As posted in another reply earlier, my dev machine dual boots XP and Vista. XP lets me set the resolution on my monitor up to 1400x1050, which is about perfect. Vista maxes out at about 1024x768 (or was it lower than that? I don't switch over to Vista if I don't have to). Exact same hardware, but Vista doesn't work right. Go figure.
Sounds like a driver problem, are you running the most recent version for your gfx card?
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
Well folks for you who have a 40 GB hard drive and only a 15 GB system partition, single core or less than 2 GB ram stay away from Vista. For those of us not living in the Stone Age, Vista is really great.
The computer I am talking about is a Dell laptop with 320GB hard drive, Core 2 duo running at 2Ghz, 4 GB RAM and 256 MB dedicated video RAM. I just said that repartitioning is not an option, the hard drive is otherwise big enough. So Vista does have 15GB entirely dedicated to it, but it seems that even this is not enough.
-
You haven't used any apps that have data shared between multiple apps and/or users, while following M$'s former "best practices" guidelines of keeping said data in the Program Files folder. This particular problem took us weeks to figure out how to work around (after taking a few days to figure out that Vista's virtualization is evil). Still haven't figured out why Vista disables Aero for one of our programs (while no such problems are encountered for other programs that use the exact same core). Also, this isn't so much of an app problem, but my dev machine dual boots XP and Vista. XP lets me set the resolution on my monitor up to 1400x1050, which is about perfect. Vista maxes out at about 1024x768 (or was it lower than that? I don't switch over to Vista if I don't have to). Exact same hardware, but Vista doesn't work right. Go figure.
Trevortni wrote:
You haven't used any apps that have data shared between multiple apps and/or users...
Yes, I have
Trevortni wrote:
XP lets me set the resolution on my monitor up to 1400x1050, which is about perfect. Vista maxes out at about 1024x768
Dah, drivers are different :rolleyes:
only two letters away from being an asset
-
Sounds like a driver problem, are you running the most recent version for your gfx card?
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
6 months ago, I was checking for updates pretty regularly, figuring that they would fix this bug sooner or later. Over the last few months, I've given up on them ever fixing the problem. I suppose I could check again, but (a) that would require logging in to Vista and (b) the last time I tried this, it took me a while to get things returned to the lesser evil after the attempt.
-
Trevortni wrote:
You haven't used any apps that have data shared between multiple apps and/or users...
Yes, I have
Trevortni wrote:
XP lets me set the resolution on my monitor up to 1400x1050, which is about perfect. Vista maxes out at about 1024x768
Dah, drivers are different :rolleyes:
only two letters away from being an asset
-
Do you have any link supporting this?
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
sure here it is http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946003/[^] :)
Always Keep Smiling. Yours Pankaj Nikam
-
sure here it is http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946003/[^] :)
Always Keep Smiling. Yours Pankaj Nikam
It's purely a GUI change. To avoid confusing (uneducated) users they're reporting the amount installed, instead of the amount the OS is able to use.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
I Installed Vista on a 15GB partition and in two months it grew so much so that now there are only 500MB free on that drive. All other software I am using is on a different partition so those 14.5 gigs are just for OS! For one thing it constantly updates and requires restart. But the big problem right now is that I can't install SP1 because it requires 2GB of free space! I tried freeing up some space but didn't manage to get enough. Turns out that the Winsxs folder takes nearly 8GB, and there is nothing one can do about that. Unfortunately repartitioning is not an option at this point. So the only thing I can do is create a new Vista CD with SP1 integrated and reinstall. :wtf: This is my first experience with Vista, draw your own conclusions. If I were you I would definitely stick to XP.
For a slightly less extreme option www.hardforum.com[^] has a recent thread in the OS forum where someone found over a gig of unicode fonts you won't need unless you're using an obscure character set, and other stuff that's almost never needed that can be deleted out of the OS folder. That might be enough to get you going. If not, vLite out stuff like the multigig driver DB as well so you have a bit more space to work with when you add the SP.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
Mark Nischalke wrote:
Yes, I have
And you haven't had any problems? You're lying somewhere.
Mark Nischalke wrote:
Dah, drivers are different
So that can just be swept under the rug then?
Trevortni wrote:
You're lying somewhere
No need to be insulting
only two letters away from being an asset
-
Hi there. I'm using WinXp SP2. I'd like to know , it's good to use Windows Vista now ? Why? What are your reasons ?
I'd wait for Mojave :-D
only two letters away from being an asset
-
Hi there. I'm using WinXp SP2. I'd like to know , it's good to use Windows Vista now ? Why? What are your reasons ?
My advice: stick to XP. Some will agree, some will disagree. My experiences, however, have not been particularly great. Vista is pretty, and some features are very nice. But Vista can be slow and clunky where it doesn't have to be; Vista settings can be a pain in the neck; and Vista is not compatible with a lot of things. I have it on one of my machines; it won't be going on any others, and, if I had time to wipe it and download the billion plus drivers (it's a high performance laptop that came with Vista) that I need for all my hardware, I'd get rid of it. Honestly, it's not as bad as I've heard some people say (if it was, I'd make time to get rid of it); but it's not worth getting, either.
-
Trevortni wrote:
You're lying somewhere
No need to be insulting
only two letters away from being an asset
-
No insults, just the facts. You probably just didn't read my whole complaint against Vista or something.
Trevortni wrote:
No insults
Trevortni wrote: You're lying somewhere Don't know what part of the world you are from but around here it is pretty insulting and inflammatory to call someone a lier.
only two letters away from being an asset
-
I'm not dumb. And who uses 32bit anymore? In 32bit mode you waste so much register space it's just ridiculous - and of course 3GB ram is simply not enough to run vista smoothly
harold aptroot wrote:
I'm not dumb.
Good. Thanks for clearing that up.
harold aptroot wrote:
And who uses 32bit anymore?
Lots of people. The majorty of people. Me. Our entire development team, and all our users.
harold aptroot wrote:
and of course 3GB ram is simply not enough to run vista smoothly
If that was the case, then you are saying that Vista 32 bit cannot run smoothly on any machine? That's dumb :)
Take a chill pill, Daddy-o .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Trevortni wrote:
No insults
Trevortni wrote: You're lying somewhere Don't know what part of the world you are from but around here it is pretty insulting and inflammatory to call someone a lier.
only two letters away from being an asset
-
harold aptroot wrote:
I'm not dumb.
Good. Thanks for clearing that up.
harold aptroot wrote:
And who uses 32bit anymore?
Lots of people. The majorty of people. Me. Our entire development team, and all our users.
harold aptroot wrote:
and of course 3GB ram is simply not enough to run vista smoothly
If that was the case, then you are saying that Vista 32 bit cannot run smoothly on any machine? That's dumb :)
Take a chill pill, Daddy-o .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
maxxx# wrote:
If that was the case, then you are saying that Vista 32 bit cannot run smoothly on any machine?
Exactly. And it is dumb. But then, it's vista.. I've not yet seen proof of Vista x64 running smoothly with any amount of RAM though - but then, 4GB was the highest amount I tested.
-
It's the same thing. The Windows Server 2008 kernel is the same as the Windows Vista SP1 kernel - Windows Server 2008 RTM even identifies itself as SP1 in the system properties control panel. Microsoft have tried very hard to make them as compatible as possible to ensure that they only need to provide one set of updates, rather than two. For example, read the file information for the July 2008 Windows Explorer update[^]. Save yourself some money - get Windows Vista!
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
-
Mostly solved? As posted in another reply earlier, my dev machine dual boots XP and Vista. XP lets me set the resolution on my monitor up to 1400x1050, which is about perfect. Vista maxes out at about 1024x768 (or was it lower than that? I don't switch over to Vista if I don't have to). Exact same hardware, but Vista doesn't work right. Go figure.
Most hardware I have encountered fully support Vista now, try spending some time finding the right drives that might help, good luck. By the way whats your graphic card make and model? Maybe I can help...