MS tricks die-hard XP users into liking Vista

[dangel]

Originally Posted by CrazyMonkey

I installed Vista Ultimate on release, it broke.... i uninstalled... The dvd has never been touched since, perhaps when i do another major upgrade to pc i may dare put it back in.

Dual boot - that way it's risk free. The drivers were terrible on release from some 3rd parties(*cough* nvidia) so it might we worth another poke.

[Funkstar]

Originally Posted by dangel

Dual boot - that way it's risk free. The drivers were terrible on release from some 3rd parties(*cough* nvidia) so it might we worth another poke.

Or you could grab Virtual PC from MS and install Vista on that, see if it still breaks with SP1 and current drivers

[directhex]

except virtualpc hardware is virtual - so whether or not an emulated s3 trio has good driver support doesn't really have much bearing on how a gtx280 behaves

[Funkstar]

oh. Well this just goes to highlight my complete missunderstanding of how VirtualPC and OS images works

I'll just go and hang out with the noobs now....

[Lankius Maximus]

I built my current rig based on the promise of Vista and Dx10 almost 2 years ago today, even going as far as to purchase my E6600 on the day of release along with the rest of the rig. You can therefore imagine my shock and disapointment when I subsequently started up Battlefield 2 and saw framerates that nearly induced a siezure! XP was installed very quickly afterwards and I didnt look back.

However memory, HD and graphic card upgrades meant I wanted a 64 bit OS and I couldnt see the point of going to XP Pro. Vista 64 duly followed and its brilliant. Apart from the initial install when there was a few issues (arent there always?) It has been very, very stable. Far more stable than XP infact, something I never thought I would say.

Some of the users of XP who have posted on this thread are right. If you dont feel the need to upgrade from XP dont. Its that simple. If you are happy not upgrading even better.

However, dont stop yourself from upgrading simply because you feel obliged due to all the anti MS feelings that are present on a lot of the other lesser forums that exist.

More to the point you could have the basis of a fine 64bit rig sitting under your desk and you are waiting its potential. Congratulations on building a 64 bit rig and running a last gen OS on it. Cant see the logic myself. Its like buying a turbo charged motor only to then go and take the turbo charger out of it for every day use!

Vista 64 has actually breathed a bit of life into my aging rig and probably put me off another complete build for the next 18 months. Could just be the added impetus of 4gigs of RAM but my system has never been quicker or better.

[TheAnimus]

Originally Posted by Lankius Maximus

Vista 64 has actually breathed a bit of life into my aging rig and probably put me off another complete build for the next 18 months. Could just be the added impetus of 4gigs of RAM but my system has never been quicker or better.

And also the fact that vista will happily use all of that extra ram for pre-caching and the like which really do have a performance boost!

[slugs]

i use vista on all my machines now. but still boot into xp to move files around even with sp1 its faster to copy files over my gigabit network on xp

I have 2gb min in all my machines and 8gb in my main. just stuck that much in because i could. i think its going get taken down to 4gb when i build my next machine.

im very attached to my xp install its been on the machine since the beta's and patched and hacked through every variation of hardware. a pair of p3's, 1ghz amd upto my current quad at 4ghz

drivers where a pain if you where an early adopter

[Splash]

if all your machines are running Vista then you shouldn't get the slow copy issue - this only affected copies from/to XP/Server 2000/Server 2003 as far as I'm aware. I certainly find that when copying dtuff from my Vista laptop to my Vista desktop it's a damn sight faster than copying to/from any of my XP boxes.

[badass]

Originally Posted by Splash

if all your machines are running Vista then you shouldn't get the slow copy issue - this only affected copies from/to XP/Server 2000/Server 2003 as far as I'm aware. I certainly find that when copying dtuff from my Vista laptop to my Vista desktop it's a damn sight faster than copying to/from any of my XP boxes.

That'll be SMB 2.0 being used. I've not seen it in practice but it sonds good

[[GSV]Trig]

I get the slow down copying to/from my Terastations

[aidanjt]

Probably because they use an old version of samba.

[[GSV]Trig]

TBH the Terastations are wank when it comes to network transfers, ok for home users but I'm kinda a bit beyond that lol

[rickworden]

Maybe I've missed something - I would like to have a separate Hardware Profile to log into depending upon how I am going to use the PC for that session. On my XP PCs I have a HP for gaming, CAD work, and general office use along with the default (everything on). I just haven't been able to see a newly created profile to my specifiation (be it manual or somehow auto). So just how do I achieve this in VISTA. If I can do this I would be delighted to switch to VISTA.

[jonh17]

from my experience ive had no real troubles with vista (excepet with the earlier betas of it) but i go through stages of liking and dislking it mainly due to the interface and some annoyances i find with the OS itself other than that though it has been running flawlessly on my system for a while now and it has worked even better since the install of SP1.

[dangel]

Originally Posted by rickworden

Maybe I've missed something - I would like to have a separate Hardware Profile to log into depending upon how I am going to use the PC for that session. On my XP PCs I have a HP for gaming, CAD work, and general office use along with the default (everything on). I just haven't been able to see a newly created profile to my specifiation (be it manual or somehow auto). So just how do I achieve this in VISTA. If I can do this I would be delighted to switch to VISTA.

The question is, why? Does it really make much of a difference disabling some services when you're doing something specific? If the answer is yes, then have you considering a different way of doing it - how about a batch script instead? For example to stop my virus killer's services I have this:

net stop "McAfee Framework Service"
net stop "McAfee Task Manager"
net stop "McAfee McShield"

And to start them up again:

net start "McAfee Framework Service"
net start "McAfee Task Manager"
net start "McAfee McShield"

If all you're doing is stop/starting services this can be done on the fly (without rebooting). Just a suggestion.

I use the above when doing a full build (as this saves about 20 minutes!) but really I've never needed to disable services temporarily otherwise.

[Choo Choo]

The Mojave Experiment website is up now:

http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/