Windows Vista Sp1 Does it make Vista a viable OS to upgrade to?

[rayzoredge 2]

Has anyone actually been satisfied with the release of SP1 for Vista? Does it solve the problems that we've all griped about?

 

Overview of Windows Vista SP1

 

From what I'm reading from that document, I'm actually surprised, appalled, and in a way, now wondering if Vista can actually be an upgrade.

 

I laughed at:

 

Enhances support for high-definition (HD) drives by adding new icons and labels that identify HD-DVD and Blu-ray drives as HD drives.

That's awesome. I never knew the HD drive that I bought was an HD until SP1.

 

Also mentioned is the exFAT file system. Why, oh why, would you format and utilize this file system on your removable devices if no other OS can detect it? Backwards-compatibility and all-around utility would be great, M$. At least allow for other OSs to recognize the disk as a FAT32 system. C'mon now.

 

Aside from a couple of things, M s flowery language suggests that it has come a long way from what it was on initial release. Does anyone have any hands-on experience with it? Do share.

 

(If there's no response, I might try it myself if I can find Vista drivers for the hardware in my laptop.)

 

Update:

 

A friend of mine has upgraded to SP1 and as far as I can tell, I personally didn't see much of an improvement. (I know it's a whole different ball game to actually use it for a while to evaluate, but the problems that plague Vista still keep me away.)

 

Reading the white papers on the service pack actually gave me a false sense of hope for this crappy operating system. How can I say that Vista sucks without using it? I may be wrong, but I've had too many issues with just trying to do basic stuff on my friend's computer... and if an operating system pisses you off in as little as 20 minutes of intermittent use, there's something wrong.

 

Vista has a great polished look, has Aero, and supports DirectX10. Those are the only good points that I can claim about the operating system. Reading up on the many, many issues that it STILL has after the release of the first service pack makes me wonder if it will ever be a viable operating system. (Then again, it took XP two service packs before it became something that I could work with well.)

 

Some personal issues that I had during my intermittent use of Vista were enough to keep me from even experimenting with it on my own computer. Last night, I planned on using a SanDisk Cruzer Mini 8GB USB drive to move a 4.11GB file from my friend's Vista machine to my XP laptop. It was formatted with NTFS and had nothing on it. Dragging and dropping the file to my USB drive left me confused with a "The file is too large for the destination" error. Remember... there's nothing on this drive. I tried multiple times, then decided to format the drive, still NTFS. Still a no go. I attempted to do a full format to FAT32 for giggles to see if it would work. Still a no go. I restarted the Vista machine and tried again from a fresh boot. No go. I decided to do a quick format back to NTFS. It works.

 

What the heck, Microsoft? Seriously.

 

Another issue I had that still exists with the first service pack is the insane lag that people have complained about between XP and Vista machines on the same network. We were trying to play a LAN game of Command and Conquer 3 and I was frankly surprised that we saw each other on the network (within C&C3) with no problems. He creates the game, but sometimes I time out trying to join. (This is on a wireless LAN, by the way, and not over the Internet.) When I do get in and we try to start the game, sometimes I time out because "the host isn't responding." When we finally get into the game, the infamous lag spikes between XP and Vista machines occurs... and apparently it's because Vista constantly searches for new wireless networks every 30-60 seconds... or in our case, 10-20. It wasn't unbearable because I'm used to lagging a bit with my DSL connection at home when playing games over the Internet, but to most other people, that would be unbearable.

 

Those two issues were enough to have me still bash the crap out of Vista whenever someone mentions it to be a viable operating system. I just can't deal with it in its current state. I understand that all operating systems go through their development phases... I was wary of switching from 98SE to XP back in the day, but until Vista demonstrates itself to be better than its predecessor in more ways than it is worse, it will remain a POS OS in my eyes.

 

Note: I have friends that use Vista with no real problems. It's all dependent on what you do with your machine... and if it's just the basics (word processing, e-mail, Internet surfing), I'm sure Vista fits the bill as a pricey, prettier alternative to XP. But even then, I still wouldn't recommend Vista to anyone at the moment.

Edited July 18, 2008 by rayzoredge (see edit history)

[rayzoredge 2]

I've installed Vista Ultimate with Service Pack 1 and I am not too impressed.I'm working off of a Dell Dimension 2400 which is not a "Vista-ready" machine. Come to think of it, the sticker on it says that it's ready for Windows XP. Here are the basic specifications:Intel Pentium 4 2.2GHz1GB DDRII SDRAMIntel 845G Graphics Accelerator with 128MB shared video memoryAfter installing Vista onto it with not too many hiccups (I had to do some Google-fu and a bit of legwork to get the onboard Intel graphics accelerator to retain my glorious 1200x1024 resolution), I was actually happy with it... until I started doing my usual routine. Keeping an eye on the CPU and RAM usage within Task Manager, I opened up Firefox with my usual 4+ tabs, had AIM running, and was playing around with files in Explorer.Vista is a PITA when it comes to multi-tasking. Copying and moving files is not as bad as what people say when it comes to the speed of doing so, but the tradeoff argument here from my experience is that it takes up 100% of CPU load just to move and/or copy files. Yes, 100%. I was not impressed. FireFox also takes up a lot of CPU load doing menial tasks, such as moving the window around! (If you have a widget that tracks CPU usage or use Task Manager, try taking your FireFox window and swinging it around. My CPU just spiked to 100% and would lag horribly just moving the window around, as opposed to the XP machine next to me, which is a Toshiba Satellite with an Intel Pentium 4 1.8GHz with 512MB of RAM with a GeForce 420 Go (32MB VRAM) running Windows XP Professional. The Satellite maintained an 80% load moving FireFox around, but it didn't lag one bit. Also, RAM is being at a constant load of around 70% running FireFox (which I can blame with 100MB), but followed with an instance of svchost (22MB), AIM (18MB), Sidebar (32MB), Explorer (16MB), and the SearchIndexer (10MB) that I thought I disabled, along with myriad other services that are eating memory up like candy. The Satellite is running at a cooler load with FireFox (100MB), Word (43MB), instance of svchost (23MB), Explorer (20MB), Outlook, WinZip, and Excel (40MB).I installed Service Pack 1 just recently and not much has changed. For starters, it took an hour and a half to install the whole thing, which didn't surprise me much. Right on boot-up to Windows, for about 5-8 minutes the CPU load was at 100% for most of the time, but with some research I found out that Windows uses mscorsvw.exe to recompile a bunch of .NET 2.0 assemblies after each change, and I guess SP1 did some changing. But I'm still not impressed. The operating system is still a resource hog, and if it's having issues just doing basic stuff like I'm using it for at work, what makes people want to even try using it for gaming and other applications? (Don't tell me DirectX 10 is an incentive... you're better off actually getting more potential out of your hardware with an XP machine than you will with a machine running Vista.)I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt, and I was actually surprised with some aspects of the operating system, but as I was biased before, I remain biased now. I hope SP2 brings something worthy to the table... but as of right now, I can't see Vista as a viable successor to an operating system that works.

[rayzoredge 2]

Does anyone know of any tips post-SP1 that will make a larger difference in performance than simply disabling extraneous services? Please post your tweaks here as I'm at a loss as how to improve performance under Vista.

I've disabled a bunch of stuff as per this website, but even after all that I net a 2% gain in RAM freed. I don't notice any performance gain while doing my normal stuff, and I'm wondering if Vista is still a lost cause.

Also, how do you disable SxS (side-by-side)? Is there a way?

I know it's not exactly fair to be saying that on a machine that barely fits the requirements, but at the same time, you would expect more from a succeeding operating system, no?

-

Edit: I found an AWESOME forum post by BD2003 that explains performance tweaks for our love-hate operating system. In short, Vista requires a ton of RAM... 2GB to do anything normal and 4GB for best results. A fast processor and video card is also rather paramount... so for the bunch of us who aren't exactly in the market for a new, higher-end machine, "upgrading" to Vista is not the best idea. Even with as much available resources as you can muster, Vista will make mincemeat of it in the numbers department, but in all reality, a higher-performing system will run Vista well as opposed to trying to make it work with, let's say, a prefabricated system "designed for XP."

Keep in mind that not everything with a Vista-Ready sticker slapped on it is truly ready to run Vista. I would recommend any system with a multi-core processor with a 2.0+ GHz clock speed, at least 2GB of RAM, a dedicated video card with 256+MB of VRAM and at least a 128-bit memory bus, and 250+GB of hard disk space as MY personal recommendation for minimum system requirements.
 

Being that the same questions keep coming up, mostly about the same things, perhaps now would be a good time to consolidate a thread about performance and tweaks that actually work, rather than those silly tweak programs that are usually counter-productive in the end. Contrary to popular belief, short of disabling features that you do not use, there is no registry hack or tweak that will actually make your system any better.

Think about this rationally - if you could gain performance by just changing a single registry key, it'd have already been the default. The things you can turn off that will add meaningul performance are accessible from the OS without resorting to "tweak" programs. Anyone who thinks tweaking is about fixing what is broken is only going to make things worse in the end.

Vista is a very different beast than XP. Vista is far more proactive in using your entire PC to stay one step ahead of you. So by default, it will use some more memory, and crunch the HD at completely random times for no obvious reason. It might appear that something is wrong, but it's quite the opposite. Performance tweaking in XP was mainly about disabling things that utilize resources, but you can not carry that thinking over to Vista, since you may end up disabling something that is beneficial in the big picture. Since the emphasis is on efficiency, features that may appear to be bloat may not be so. But don't get me wrong - there's still plenty of bloat.

In other words, this thread is as much about what to tweak as what NOT to tweak. Most are vista specific, yet I will still list a few carryovers from XP that I believe are too important to not mention.

There are three things you MUST understand about vista before you go tweaking away.

1) What kind of PC do you need for Vista?

The single biggest factor is the amount of memory you have. Vista, or any other OS, does not chew through huge amounts of CPU cycles in the background. Programs run pretty much the same (generally speaking) on ANY OS, all hardware being the same. But newer OSes require more RAM. And RAM is cheap! You don't HAVE to tweak much of anything if you have more than enough RAM, as the vast majority of tweaks is geared towards reducing memory usage.

2GB of memory is about $50 or less now. This is the single best investment you can make for your Vista system. You can spend hours tweaking unnecessary things in the name of shaving resources, and many more hours fixing what you've broken, or you can drop in an extra stick and be done with it.

Vista + 512mb = Bad idea.
Vista + 1gb = Good for desktop applications, pre-2007 games.
Vista + 2gb = Good for 2007 games.
Vista + 4gb (x64) = Plenty of headroom.

Really, its that simple. Really. Seriously.

2) Disk grinding

In XP and every instance before, we've been trained to equate disk grinding with swapping, and the general ugliness that comes along with it. Thats the most common scenario you'd hear it, and if your disk was grinding away for no apparent reason, something MUST be really, really wrong.

You need to get over that. Vista will do a LOT that will cause disk grinding - indexing, precaching, system restore, defrag, etc. It will ususally do this when it senses youre idle (you havent touched mouse/kb in over 60 secs), but occasionally (usually on boot), it will grind away while you actively using it, although ALWAYS at low priority I/O.

When you hear that lovely crunching, even if it isnt slower, it will feel slower. You need to untrain yourself from having that reaction. Nothing is wrong.

3) Memory usage

Vista will precache to fill your memory. It will also keep a lot more in active memory, depending on how much ram you have. The more RAM you have, the more it will use, and this will be reflected in both used memory and cached memory.

No matter how much its using, it will give up as much as is needed to ANY program or game.

Therefore, stop staring at your memory meter, and going nuts over how vista is using 2gb of your 4gb with a single browser window open. Nothing is wrong. Free memory = wasted memory.


So in summation = More ram needed, disk grinding ok, staring memory meter bad. I know its hard, it took me a while to get used to it too.

C O N T E N T S

•  
  
• 32bit or 64bit?
  
• User Interface
  
• Networking
  
• Unnecessary Apps and Services
  
• Windows Security Center
  
• Audio
  
• File System
  
• Application Compatibility
  
• Power Settings
  
• Backup
  
• Gaming/Drivers/CPU
  
• Task Scheduling
  
• Optimizing for low end machines
  
• Bad tweaks
  
•  
  
• <<<<<32bit or 64bit?
  Have 4gb of ram? Plan on having 4gb of ram anytime soon? Just cant decide? Go with x64.
  
  The drivers are mature, the OS is stable, and aside from a VERY, VERY small population of apps with compatibility problems (many of which have workarounds, ex. Itunes), theres no reason NOT to use x64.
  
• <<<<<UI
  
•  
  
• Aero Glass - Although you might be tempted to turn it off, believing it is bloat, the new 3d GUI is generally faster and more efficient than the old GDI+ one, since it utilizes a previously untapped resource - your GPU. On a dual monitor, 2560x1024 setup, the desktop window manager service uses <1% CPU. Dropping down to vista basic shaved about 50mb of ram, however, so if youďż˝re really hard up for RAM, (512mb/1gb gamer) you might want to consider switching to Vista Basic.
  
  Don�t bother manually turning it off before gaming, if you believe it might case a drop in frame rates; it won�t. There�s zero performance hit.
  http://www.firingsquad.com/harero_glass_performance/
  
  Glass is automatically disabled when a game runs in DirectX exclusive mode, even on dual monitors � so if you have a system powerful enough for today�s games, there�s no reason not to use aero glass.
  
• Dual Monitors - I don't know about you, but one monitor isn't enough for me. Vista support for dual monitors is fairly good right now.
  
  One important thing to note is that if you are using two separate video cards for dual monitors, they *must* be able to use the same driver. So you can't mix an Ati and nvidia card, but you can use a GF7 and GF4 together, for instance.
  
  One thing that has always annoyed me is how the taskbar is only on one monitor. I use the program Ultramon to rectify this.
  
  http://realtimesoft.com/ultramon/
  
  It has the "smart taskbar" feature which will create a secondary taskbar containing only the tasks from the second monitor.
  
  I don't know whether it's just the games I've been recently playing, but it could be Vista - some games don't lock the mouse properly, and you can mouse over from the game to the secondary desktop, making the game impossible to play. First, try alt tabbing out of the game, and then go back in. I'm not sure why, but it fixes it for many games. If that doesnt work, you can use ultramon.
  
  Ultramon allows you to temporarily set your desktop to single monitor while you play the game. This corects the mouse problem, yet it shifts anything from the secondary monitor over to the primary. It tries to move everything back when done, but it's not perfect - a few sidebar gadgets get left behind sometimes, etc. But it's better than nothing, and hopefully will improve with time. If you use dual display, in Vista or XP, GET ULTRAMON - I couldnt live without it.
  
• Window Animation ďż˝ The new minimize/close animations are cool, but get old quick. The animation is far too slow IMO, and I recommend disabling them ďż˝ the system feels snappier without them. The animations don't drag on actual performance per se, they just subjectively make the system feel less responsive. AFAIK, thereďż˝s no way to speed them up. In advanced system options under the system CP applet, uncheck ďż˝animate windows while min/maxingďż˝. And while youďż˝re at it, you might as well uncheck the fading and sliding, effects which have not changed since Win2000, IMO have never looked good and again, only serve to subjectively slow you down.
  
  I've received several PMs from members saying that if there was any "tweak" that made the biggest difference, this was it. The system feels so much more responsive afterwards - I'm all for beautifying the UI, but not if it slows you down so much. Its personal preference in the end, it has zero effect on resourcves.
  
• Explorer
  
  Movies and Pictures load as thumbnails and do take up memory, as well as CPU while being initially decoded, so you can disable that in folder options � �Always show icons, never thumbnails�. Thumbnails are stored in a hidden file in each folder called thumbs.db - once they are made, they can be reloaded very quickly.
  
• Sidebar ďż˝ The sidebar eats up a good 10-30mb depending on your gadgets, so if you hate the entire idea, no reason to keep the sidebar on, and disable it from starting up in the properties tab of the tray icon. You can turn off the actual ďż˝barďż˝ by right clicking and choosing close sidebar ďż˝ any gadgets you pulled off onto the desktop will remain.
  
  I highly recommend against using the included CPU meter, or any others you find online in the gallery ďż˝ they use WMI and eat up a decent amount of CPU time themselves ďż˝ there are better alternatives out there.
  
  The included RSS feed headlines is also pretty terrible � it spikes 50-100% CPU usage every few minutes. And if you�re going to use the clock, turn off the seconds hand, which drops CPU usage down from 1% or so to near nothing.
  
  Of the included gadgets, the weather, clock (without seconds) and calendar ones are pretty useful and harmless towards performance. On the downloads side, look up �express calculator�, �notes� and �outlook appointments� and �outlook tasks� for some useful, lightweight gadgets.
  
  At any rate, if you�re concerned about the gadgets slowing you down while you game, you can set sidebar.exe to low priority in task manager.
  
• User folders ďż˝ Vista doesnďż˝t hide your user folder like XP, itďż˝s easy to find in C:\Users\Username. If you want to keep your documents elsewhere (which I highly suggest), you can change the location of any particular user folder (music, movies etc) by right clicking the folder, properties, and changing it in the location tab. I prefer to keep my data on a separate partition from my OS, and by changing it here, you can do so while maintaining transparency to the user subsystem. If you change the location of a user folder that already contains data, it will also move all the files to their new location.
  
  Unfortunately, this has to be done on a folder to folder basis � you can�t move the entire user directory to another partition.
  
• Start menu- Thereďż˝s little to tweak here performance wise ďż˝ you might consider turning off the window previews if they annoy you (they annoy me), but that didnďż˝t save me any memory.
  
• Autoplay ďż˝ Something Iďż˝ve always hated since it invariably gets in the way, and causes unnecessary lag, you can completely disable it for everything in the autoplay CP applet.
  
• Boot/Startup config
  You can easily configure startup programs (start menu and registry) by using the system configuration utility under administrative tools.
  
• <<<<<Networking
  The networking applet is much improved. I suggest turning off �media sharing� and �public sharing� unless you actually use them for security reasons. If you only have one PC, you can safely disable �network discovery�. Likewise, if you never use it, disable �offline files� from it�s own applet.
  
•  
  
• Flow Control- In the device manager, for your network adapter, there is an advanced option called ďż˝flow controlďż˝ which is disabled by default. If you're running a server with heavy networking I/O you may want to enable it, but for most general users, it's just overhead and is best left disabled.
  Forget about the old MTU/TCP window tweaking tricks ďż˝ vista optimizes it automatically.
  
• <<<<<Unncessary Windows Apps and Services
  I used to be a big fan of disable �unnecessary services�, only to find out they were quite necessary later. The descriptions given DO NOT always encompass their entire functions. In general, the included services use fractions of fractions of fractions of percent CPU time, and very little memory. In general, if you don�t know what it does, leave it alone!
  
  Under programs and features, you can disable plenty of included but unnecessary apps under �turn windows features on or off� � such as tablet PC components, meeting space, fax and scan etc. Uncheck anything you're *SURE* don�t need, and if you�re not 10000% sure � leave it alone.
  
  I really can't stress this enough - in the past, I've spent HOURS trying to figure out issues with my PC that eventually traced back to services. The ONLY thing you gain from disabling services is a paltry amount of memory, up to 50-100mb in the most EXTREME of cases that you can practically guarantee will cause problems. Unless youre a true enthusiast that tweaks for the sake of tweaking, you will invariably be better served by an extra stick of RAM than every other tweak combined.
  
• <<<<<Security Center
  I'm a believer that the main line of security is and always will be the user. Unless you consistently expose yourself to risks, much of this is excessive and overbearing IMO. That being said, if security is critical to you, or you are a bit of a noob, leave everything on and you�ll be much safer for it.
  
  I want to be very clear: I'm not *recommending* you do anything I mention in the security section - I'm just telling you how to do it if you so desire.
  
  This is a guide about performance, not security, if you're looking for more info about security, see Schadenfroh's guide here:
  
  http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
•  
  
• UAC ďż˝ I canďż˝t stand it. Itďż˝s far too overbearing, asking you for permission for tasks that absolutely shouldnt require admin access. It has also been the source of the majority of my compatibility issues. If you'd rather take your chances than be constantly bugged by it all the time ďż˝ you can turn it off here.
  
  If maximum security is your ultimate goal (ie, your little bro uses your PC), you should definitely leave UAC on, and log in as a standard user.
  
• Automatic updating ďż˝ It has a really annoying tendency to reboot your computer overnight without warning you, which can be a serious problem if you have unsaved data open. Therefore I *highly* suggest setting it to download but not automatically install updates.
  
• DEP - By default, windows only turns on Data Execution Prevention for "essential" windows programs and services. You can set it to all programs, and blacklist incompatible apps. I've read about a rare app that can have issues with it, however I don't believe there is any significant performance hit. Being that its under "performance options" in the system applet, I might be wrong. http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/404.png
  
• System Restore ďż˝ Iďż˝ve never been a big fan of it, since Iďż˝ve always felt itďż˝s a drain on disk space and performance, and a poor substitute for a backup. The Vista version is much improved ďż˝ it creates restore points much faster, and it is the underlying system behind the ďż˝previous versionsďż˝ feature.
  
  Yet I still don't like it. Unlike the indexer, which runs only while idle, system restore is far more intrusive. It will make a new system restore point every time you install an app or driver. If you put your PC to sleep overnight, it will create one first thing in the morning. The actual effect on performance is pretty light (compared to the sounds it makes) due to low priority I/O, but it can grind away from minutes at a time. It also uses up to 15% disk space of your OS partition as well.
  
  Unfortunately, you can't modify it's behavior and tell it to just run at night or when idle. So if you want to do away with the overprotection, you can disable system restore entirely under �system protection� in the system applet. This will also disable the previous versions feature, BTW.
  
• <<<<<Audio
  
  Rather than taking up half the space here about audio, I separated it into another post found here:
  
  http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
  
  It primarily goes into 3D Gaming Audio and Home Theater applications in Vista, and includes general recommendations on what to use for what scenario, why you should use it, and the inherent problems with each route.
  
•  
  
• Indexing ďż˝ The first day running vista, it will need to create the initial index. It may be crunching away at it for a while, and this might give you the impression that itďż˝s a resource hog that will always be active in the background, and therefore needs to be disabled ASAP. But once the initial run is completely, you will barely ever notice it again, so give it the benefit of the doubt for a day or two.
  
  Files are actively indexed generally only while you are idle, at a low priority I/O thread. Unless you ALWAYS turn off your PC immediately when you're done using it, you should rarely see it actively indexing.
  
  Indexing frequency - It's completely out of place, but under power options, there is you can configure how often you wish the index to be updated. Setting it to use less power *rarely* updates the index - I set it to low power, rebuilt the index, and it didnt start indexing for days, no matter how idle it was. So I'd stay away from that. And setting it to update more often made it entirely ignore the idle state, and just constantly index whenever it felt like it, even during a game. So set it to balanced, and it won't get in your way when you're using the PC, and will update enough while idle to be useful.
  
  By default, windows indexes *everything* in your user folder. That�s a bit over the top for me, so you can modify the exact folders which it indexes in the index properties � since I cant imagine ever needing to quick search for anything else, I�ve limited it to documents, music, pictures and email folders. Whatever you do, don't get overzealous and index *everything* on your system - too much of a good thing is a bad thing. You can still search your entire system without an index. Since it may have previously indexed many unnecessary files, you should consider entirely rebuilding the index, so it will thereafter contain only those files you specify.
  
  So turning the indexer off completely may free up some memory, depending on the size of your index. But it won't impact general system performance if it's set up correctly.
  
  This is just a quick rundown - I posted another guide that goes into far more detail about Readyboost and Superfetch, that would be far too long to put here.
  
  http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
• Superfetch ďż˝ Superfetch is IMO the reason to get Vista. It is the most obvious example of Vista being proactive towards utilizing your entire PC for make benefit of glorious user. Rather than mindlessly caching in RAM the last accessed data like XP, it analyzes the programs you actually use, when you use them, and preloads them into RAM. It also prevents I/O that shouldnďż˝t be cached from being cached ďż˝ virus scanners etc. I find that with Vista I rarely if ever end up loading an app from the hard drive anymore.
  
  As far as tweaking, the only option you have is to turn it off by disabling the service. But I *highly* recommend against it. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The cached data is viewed by the OS as available memory, so if a program actually needs more RAM, it�ll dump the cache for the time being.
  
  If you�re wondering why after you boot, there is random disk I/O for a minute or two, it�s the superfetch precaching everything, not some inexplicable windows bloat that just won�t go away. Free memory = wasted memory!
  
  What does this actually mean to you from a performance perspective? For desktop apps that you use with any frequency, they will likely start up MUCH faster, directly out of ram. For a game which you play frequently, level loads will be MUCH faster. Vista doesnt care who or where the files it caches come from - it just makes sure the ones you use, whether its desktop apps or game files, are ready and waiting for you, especially if you do certain tasks at certain times. If you code during the day, and game during the night or weekend, you can expect those particular files to be ready for you when its time.
  
  But this does not comprise the entirety of the cache - much of it is still left for the most recently used I/O, trying to strike a good balance.
  
  Theres no way that I know of to view whats in the cache, but if you want to peek at whats being loaded as its being loaded, you can use process monitor.
  
  http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
•  
  
• Readyboost ďż˝ Readyboost is by far the most misunderstood new feature. Itďż˝s a disk cache, itďż˝s a substitute for RAM, its good and itďż˝s bad. For a very good FAQ on it, read here:
  
  
  I�ve found that it does indeed help when you are strapped for memory, even with a slow stick. If you have a slow stick and you�re rarely strapped for memory, I�d leave it out for now.
  
  The thing to realize about readyboost is that in it's current USBkey-centric incarnation, it's pretty much a hack. It is not a replacement for memory, and if you have the choice between more RAM and more readyboost, ALWAYS go with more RAM. Its primarily of use to those who cant or do not know how to upgrade their memory.
  
  THG did a few *valid* benchmarks of it, as most I have seen to this point have completely missed the point and did not test it under a scenario where it will actually benefit. It generally shows an across the board improvement, even with 2gb. The difference is quite minimal at 2gb, since most important data is easily cached in main memory, but it's still something.
  
  http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
  
  It will work with some CF/SD cards in USB 2.0 media readers, but in order to do so, you usually must first change the policy of the device to �optimize for performance�. Either choose the device in device mananger or right click drive, properties, choose the device in question, properties again, policies tab.
  
  Microsoft has a readyboost kit with some documentation/tweaks available, which I would love to link to, but it refuses to link properly. Google "Readyboostkit".
  
  In case you want to find out the actual performance of your USB stick by which readyboost capability is being judged, in a command line type in
  
  winsat disk �read �ran �ransize 4096 �drive U (�U� being the actual drive letter of your stick)
  
  winsat disk �write �ran �ransize 524288 �drive U (�U� being the actual drive letter of your stick)
  
  And before you go out and buy the �fastest� stick you can find, keep in mind that sequential I/O speed is not equivalent to random I/O speed, in fact, they are often inversely correlated. Two particular sticks that I know are excellent performers for readyboost is the �Apacer Handy Steno� and the �Corsair Turboflash�. If you want to know which stick to buy specifically for readyboost, buy exactly this one, it's the best, and it's damn cheap.
  
  http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
  
  You might have found a tweak on the net that allows you to force it enabled on slow drives that fail the test � don�t bother. It�s disabled for a reason, and you�d be doing more harm than good.
  
  Regarding capacity vs. speed - in general, faster is better. So is bigger.
  
  Personally, I have 4gb of ram, and 1gb turboflash stick. It rarely sees use outside of gaming, but I don't need it to. But inside of gaming, on a really resource intensive game such as oblivion, the difference is VERY noticible.
  
  And at the end of the day, flash is NOT a substitute for real memory.
  
• Defrag ďż˝ The included degfragger is stripped ďż˝ no progress bar, no block diagram etc. Fragmentation does not make as big a difference as many believe, and with superfetch, it's even less of an issue. By default, Vista will defrag in the background every three days when the PC is idle, so just forget defrag ever existed, and let vista do itďż˝s thing.
  
• Swap file ďż˝ There is one, and only one, useful swap file tweak. Put it on a separate *physical* drive from your OS, apps, and/or games. Preferably in itďż˝s own partition at the beginning of the disk, to keep it as fast as possible.
  
  When the swap file is on another disk, a single hard drive head does not have to constantly swing back and forth between the swap file, the program it�s trying to load, writing pages out, reading in etc. The front of the drive is also the spot with the lowest access times. I dedicate the first 2gb of my secondary drive to it, and label it S:.
  
  Putting it on a separate partition in the same physical drive is also a bad idea ďż˝ it lengthens the physical distance the head has to swing, between the files causing the swapping and the swapping itself, not to mention creates an I/O clogging nightmare.
  
  Changing the size will not affect performance, more is not better, and less can be worse.
  
• Hard drive advanced performance ďż˝ Under the policies tab for your individual hard disks, there is a new option for ďż˝advanced performanceďż˝. My understanding is that by enabling this, the data can be written to the hard driveďż˝s cache, but the physical writing to disk can be delayed to prevent I/O backups. I have noticed a bit of a boost in general I/O performance.
  
  If you lose power though, that data may never be written, and worst case scenario, a system file can get trashed and you can�t boot. So if you�re testing an overclock, or doing anything else that will invariably lead to crashing, I�d leave it off until your system is stable.
  
• <<<<<Application Compatibility
  Many programs have a bit of difficulty with Vista, but by right clicking the shortcut, you have a few options. First try running in �XP SP2 Compatibility mode� � this fixes many apps outright. If it has issue with the aero glass, you can check �disable desktop composition�, but this will turn glass off for ALL apps while the incompatible app is running. I�ve found only one obscure app that needed this option to run.
  
• <<<<<Power Settings
  Being that aero glass uses the 3d hardware, you�d naturally assume it would lead to increased battery drain, and I�d naturally agree, but those who have tested it have found otherwise:
  http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
  So don�t fret about that.
  
  In the power options, you have a few new options, dealing with Hybrid hard drives, USB, PCI-E etc, min/max processor speeds and media sharing. I�d suggest going over them to make sure they�re all in right order for your system.
  
  The new �sleep� mode in vista is a hybrid standby/hibernate. It enters your standby state, while simultaneously writing to disk in case of a power failure. This is a good thing for those with laptops. Desktops don�t have the problem of a constantly draining battery, so you can disable hibernate. This will free up a chunk of hard drive space as big as the size of your system memory, and speed up the standby process.
  
•  
  
• To turn off hibernate- type in ďż˝powercfg ďż˝H offďż˝ in a run dialog.
  
  Regarding standby in general, there are two types S1(POS) and S3(STR). It is set in the bios. Sometimes, you will have problems booting into windows if you change it after an install, but it worked for me, so if you want to change it, give it a shot, changing it back will boot you fine.
  
  S1(POS) is the old style standby, which leaves your fans running etc. It still saves a decent amount of power. Flicking your mouse will turn it back on.
  S3(STR Suspend to RAM) is newer, and basically powers down everything but your RAM. It uses very, very little power, and is much recommended. I actually have to press the �Sleep� button or power button to turn it back on, which I like.
  
• Windows won't stay asleep- Check the system event log. The "power-troubleshooter" source will tell you what woke it up out of sleep. If it says "Wake Source: Unknown" as mine did when I was having problems, go to the advanced properties of your network adapter, and set "wake up capabilites" to none. Even though I had disabled wake-on lan in the bios, and unchecked the box to allow the nic to bring wake windows up, it still insisted on waking itself up in 30 seconds until I changed this.
  
• <<<<<Backup
  Vista has a few new, much improved options for backup, but they�re not perfect.
  
  First you have the standard incremental backup, which will work well for most. Much easier to use, and can browse files, it can be scheduled etc.
  
  The complete PC, disk imaging, Ghost-style backup is also pretty good, but I�ve yet to find a way to selectively browse and restore particular files from the image, which limits it�s usefulness. It�s still a good idea to have a full image of your system in case of total catastrophe.
  
  Although not exclusive to vista (there is an XP version), Microsoft released a utility called �synctoy� which is fantastic.
  
  http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
  
  Rather than creating obscure backup file formats, it can synchronize two folders in many different ways. I use it nightly to backup my documents, music and pictures to a file server. It copies the files directly without compression, but pictures and music are already compressed as much as they will ever be, and documents are generally small enough for me not to care. The advantage is being able to access the files directly rather than through an intermediary app. It�s a fantastic little utility, check it out.
  
• <<<<<Gaming/Drivers
  The time has come that Vista drivers are relatively mature both in 32-bit and 64-bit. The performance difference between the vast majority of games between XP and any flavor of Vista is so small that you'll only notice a difference in benchmarks. Other than a few remaining issues with my X-Fi, I have ZERO gaming/driver related issues.
  
• <<<<<Task scheduler
  The new task scheduler is vastly improved over XP's, and allows you to set up tasks much easier, as well as chain them in sequence. This can enable you to make a nightly maintenance task to take care of things while you sleep, without having to worry about the utility apps all conflicting, trying to run at the same time.
  
  I just set the computer into standby, when 2AM strikes, it wakes up, runs the tasks, then goes back into standby. Due to superfetch, when I wake back up, I don�t have to worry about the system being sluggish in the morning either.
  
  Being that such maintenance is now a set it and forget it option, even though it may seem excessive to do this nightly, there's no good reason *not* to.
  
• <<<<<Optimizing for low end machines
  By low end, I mean 512mb, 1.5ghz Celeron type machines. To be perfectly honest, you shouldnt be running Vista on 512mb. It can be done, but RAM is so cheap nowadays that there is absolutely no reason to. If youre willing to spend $200 on Vista, you need to be willing to spend $30 on a stick of ram.
  
•  
  
• Use a good readyboost stick (corsair turboflash 1gb - $20!)
  
• Drop down to Aero Basic, or classic if you're REALLY low end.
  
• Choose "adjust for best performance" in advanced system settings. (unchecks everything)
  
• Use classic view in explorer, disable thumbnails
  
• Turn off sidebar, gadgets, and all audio enhancements.
  
• Consider turning off indexing, system restore, and UAC.
  
• Use Opera instead of IE/FF, Media Player Classic instead of WMP11. (Everyone should do this anyway, regardless of spec. http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/404.png)
  With this config you will almost definitely be running a bit to a lot faster than XP depending on your usage, and while many of the new features are disabled, you still derive much of the benefits of the underlying changes in the new OS.
  
• <<<<<Bad Tweaks
  I left this at the end since most of this is just as specific to XP as it is to Vista, but I'd like to take some time to elaborate on some common tweaks that are really, really bad idea. There is another guide on the net that has covered this quite well:
  
  https://tweakhound.com/xp/xptweaks/supertweaks11.htm
  
  A few really need to be mentioned though.
  
  Memory "optimizers" - Those programs that "clear memory" for you. They're stupid, and you're stupid if you use them. If a program needs memory, it will take it. Clearing memory beforehand isn't going to make the process more efficient, and will likely dump out of memory things that didn't need to be. Vista memory management is better than ever, don't screw with it.
  
  LargeSystemCache - Also set in system options, by setting "Background services" as more important than "Applications". Unless you want your file cache to eat away at the memory of running programs, don't set this option. Superfetch will make the cache as large as it can and should be - this probably isn't going to help you unless your box is a total server that doesnt even have a display.
  
  Any prefetch settings - You don't need to "clean it". It's kept current and updated...there is NOTHING you can do to make the prefetcher any more efficient than it is by default.
  

edit: 2/1 Added a bit about DEP, a few new links, and edited for clarity. http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/404.png
edit: 2/2 Reorganized a bit, added info about current state of drivers, fleshed out audio support.
edit: 2/12 Reorganized/updated a bit again, added specifics about CPU, indexing, and bad tweaks.
edit: 2/28 Added a little more about readyboost.
edit: 4/4 Updated the drivers, a few other little things.
edit: 9/15 Removed some outdated information, updated a few sections, particularly the audio (in its own post).
edit: 12/29 Cut out outdated stuff, added a bit to the beginning.

Edited: 12/29/2007 at 04:18 PM by BD2003
 
Source

Note: Copied and pasted instead of simply linking just in case that forum dies for any reason. The information is that valuable. Also, check out the links to his other articles within that same forum... very informative stuff.
 

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by OpaQue (see edit history)

[rayzoredge 2]

Mods: Please rename this topic to "Why Vista?" Figured it would be more of a discussion on why or why not we should upgrade to Vista instead of just being about SP1.Funny enough, I was bored enough to read the CNet review on Vista SP1... and even they can't find any real differences with their benchmarks. There are some items to note that sped up after the patch, but amazingly enough, some things didn't change or worsened with the update.I'm not sure if I have any real basis on being able to bash the operating system as much as I do, considering the fact that I've only used it for less than two weeks. But those two weeks have been rather, well, unhappily-spent with an operating system that made me gripe about the simple GUI changes that of course threw me into an unfamiliarization tizzy, the supposed resource-hogging (which is to blame for poor system specifications and/or utilization of those resources... not sure what Vista does with that constant load on RAM and CPU resources during "idle"). Then again, can anyone tell me why any XP user should make the jump? Are the few pros I'm seeing really worth the plethora of cons I do see? Or am I just being stupid, staying on the XP-SP2 bandwagon and trying to stick with a dying OS? (I didn't even upgrade to XP SP3... the supposed updates didn't seem necessary to Joe Schmoe, the average consumer, and thus, I didn't see any of what SP3 brought to the table as a necessary upgrade.)Being as stubborn as I am, I'm being very reluctant to "upgrade" to Vista... and an eyebrow is raised for Windows 7, since it looks EXACTLY like Vista. (As far as the underlying code goes to make the current Microsoft operating system better... only time will tell with its release later this year.) With that being said, XP is going to finally bite the dust as far as support and upgrades to keep it up with the times... which leaves a lot of hardcore XP users searching for an answer, especially when 64-bit goes mainstream (as XP Professional has a long-abandoned x64 version).

[rpgsearcherz 5]

I have found Vista after Sp1 to be much, much better than before. Before, I would load up Vista and within a few hours want to go back to XP, usually doing so.Just recently I was forced to do a reformat again, after avoiding Vista for well over a year, so I decided to give it a try with the new SP's and other updates. I have no issues with it now.In fact, when I booted up from a fresh install, the only drivers I needed were for my video card. My motherboard, wifi, etc. were already installed through Vista.On the other hand, with XP I have to go find all of those discs and manually install them all.Now, I'm not going to deny that Vista is a huge resource hog, but with the ease of use and all I find it much more pleasurable than XP, and much better than Vista was in the past.One of the few things I would definitely recommend that you do with your system is disable UAC - User Account Control. I find it to be a huge annoyance when copying, deleting, renaming, etc. files. If you know what you are doing, it should be of no real use for you.

[Tramposch 1]

I remember when SP1 was still going through beta and release candidates. I installed RC1 and didn't notice much of a difference. When the final release was out, I still didn't notice any difference. I have used Home Premium and Ultimate. Now, I am not sure what I am supposed to be looking for, but I didn't find it so I just switched back to XP. And now that is failing me...Time to get a Mac!Anyways...SP1 is a good idea to install. It does contain bug fixes and vulnerability patches. Those are important to cover up. It is definitely worth your time to update. But will you really notice much of a difference - probably not.

[Saint_Michael 3]

True I didn't notice anything different about Vista SP1 except the quick installation time and so it should be interesting if the hype around Vista SP2 this year will make vista bit better even though Windows 7 is about to come out sometime after it I believe.

As for the WinSXS folder you cannot disable it as that folder is the brain of Vista especially in terms of making various software compatible ot run on vista and what not. That is why every time you install some new software that folder gets bigger and bigger just because the files in there make it possible to run software on vista. Check out my topic about I made awhile back and it gives some more information about why you can't get rid of winsxs http://forums.xisto.com/topic/51398-the-reason-why-your-hard-drive-seems-to-get-smaller-when-running-vista/

[Tramposch 1]

I think the best bet for anybody that wants to switch to Vista is just wait. At this point it isn't worth it. Windows 7 is due late 2009/early 2010 and dropping 200 bucks for Home Premium isn't worth it. If you are buying a new computer, get Vista if you can. It is useful. I do like it. There are bugs. But who cares? Everything has bugs. And the bugs in Vista are just really hyped up. If you are going to delete the WinSXS folder...wow. Why would you delete system files? That is like deleting winboot or your whole windows folder for that matter. They are there for a reason.

[rayzoredge 2]

SM: I actually remember the post about SxS, which is why I brought it up and the pro and con of disabling it (if you can even do such a thing). (Summary for those that have not been informed: In theory, it sounds like an awesome idea to ensure program compatibility and dependability with multiple copies of old and new DLLs, but at the same time, the redundancy absolutely kills disk space... by the GB.) And since no one has found a way to disable it or really keep it under control without sacrificing Vista's stability, it's a black mark against migrating from XP in my opinion.Tramposh: Like I said, SxS is theoretically a good idea, and you would be dumb to try to get rid of system-dependent files. On the same token, Microsoft seems to have taken the road that everyone has a ton of space nowadays, and thus made this feature as bloated as it could possibly be. (Or maybe not... maybe I'm wrong, but it's still a rather bloated feature even if it was optimized. Then again, it's Microsoft... )With the advent of Windows 7, which visually looks much like Vista, my guess is that it IS Vista but with a different name so that Microsoft can ditch the dirty operating system the world knows as Vista. How many geeks do you know tell you that Vista is garbage? How many IT professionals have "upgraded" to Vista? Why are computer manufacturers/distributors STILL offering a "downgrade" to XP from Vista with their prefabricated systems? (I remember some statistical number like 18% for XP-to-Vista upgrades as far as the commercial sector goes, which is pretty bad considering the hype that Microsoft backs their new operating system with.) When someone hears Windows 7, it's going to be a new thing to either be slandered or to be praised. We'll have to see if Microsoft finally got their act together and put together an operating system that can compare or even be better than Linux, Leopard, and/or whatever else is out there.Hopefully I'll be able to afford a new machine, and obviously it will come with a copy of Vista. I don't think I would mind too much to work with Home Premium or Ultimate, and I might even give Vista a better review once I'm actually stuck with it as opposed to having the choice to go back to XP. (I say this because of 64-bit systems becoming more mainstream... and although XP Professional has a 64-bit version, it has been long since abandoned.)

[Tramposch 1]

SM: I actually remember the post about SxS, which is why I brought it up and the pro and con of disabling it (if you can even do such a thing). (Summary for those that have not been informed: In theory, it sounds like an awesome idea to ensure program compatibility and dependability with multiple copies of old and new DLLs, but at the same time, the redundancy absolutely kills disk space... by the GB.) And since no one has found a way to disable it or really keep it under control without sacrificing Vista's stability, it's a black mark against migrating from XP in my opinion.
Tramposh: Like I said, SxS is theoretically a good idea, and you would be dumb to try to get rid of system-dependent files. On the same token, Microsoft seems to have taken the road that everyone has a ton of space nowadays, and thus made this feature as bloated as it could possibly be. (Or maybe not... maybe I'm wrong, but it's still a rather bloated feature even if it was optimized. Then again, it's Microsoft... )

With the advent of Windows 7, which visually looks much like Vista, my guess is that it IS Vista but with a different name so that Microsoft can ditch the dirty operating system the world knows as Vista. How many geeks do you know tell you that Vista is garbage? How many IT professionals have "upgraded" to Vista? Why are computer manufacturers/distributors STILL offering a "downgrade" to XP from Vista with their prefabricated systems? (I remember some statistical number like 18% for XP-to-Vista upgrades as far as the commercial sector goes, which is pretty bad considering the hype that Microsoft backs their new operating system with.) When someone hears Windows 7, it's going to be a new thing to either be slandered or to be praised. We'll have to see if Microsoft finally got their act together and put together an operating system that can compare or even be better than Linux, Leopard, and/or whatever else is out there.

Hopefully I'll be able to afford a new machine, and obviously it will come with a copy of Vista. I don't think I would mind too much to work with Home Premium or Ultimate, and I might even give Vista a better review once I'm actually stuck with it as opposed to having the choice to go back to XP. (I say this because of 64-bit systems becoming more mainstream... and although XP Professional has a 64-bit version, it has been long since abandoned.)

Well...I have seen most new computers come with at least 250GB of HDD space. That is surely enough for any normal user. Everyone knows that Vista is bloated in a lot of ways. And this feature is useful to prevent headaches, but the sacrifice is a lot of disk space. The funny thing is, Windows 7 is even worse. I would say it is safe to assume that most people will have large HDDs when Windows 7 is released, but 10GB just for the OS is outlandish. I had a 50GB partition set for it and it ate through that space very quickly.

Windows 7 looks like Vista now. However, there are a lot of subtle improvements made. Like the start menu being completely Aero Glass styled, along with maximized windows (that pissed me off to no end that they went black, along with the task bar). That styling was in the pre-beta builds. They have the new superbar (which is unlockable in build 6801). The superbar is amazing. It is a combination of a dock and task bar. Very useful and very beautiful. Also, explorer changed yet again. Files are yet again displayed differently. Pictures are in albums that you can see previews of. It is like they took the folder off the preview they have in Vista. There are still many design overhauls in Windows 7 that haven't happened yet because you do design after functionality.

I agree with what you are saying in the rest of that paragraph. Vista isn't ideal for a professional environment, and sometimes even in a home setting. It is very different from XP, which will draw people away from it. There is also the publicity it has had, which is quite negative. That throws it down a bit too. In addition, it is more money. If you want to upgrade to Vista, you shell out a few hundred bucks. And if you are buying a new system, you might save some money by going with XP. Not to mention XP runs faster than Vista. Vista was designed to run on faster computers. You almost need a dual core (preferably a quad core though) and 2GB+ of RAM. Couple that with a higher end video card and you will have good Vista performance. Even with the Mojave experience ad campaign that Microsoft is using, not many more people are convinced.

Windows 7 is promising. From my experience, it is drastically better. Though it is still buggy, which is going to happen in pre-betas, it was usable and fast. I think it will be able to easily compete with Linux and Leopard (probably not Snow Leopard, Apple's upcoming OS) and whatever else might be released. But I still do see XP having a large market share. Even with computers coming down in price, most people and businesses do not want to dish out the money to upgrade entire fleets of computers. It is just plain expensive. And the whole economic crisis doesn't help that.

Buying a new machine with Vista is the way to go. Upgrading to it, unless you have a power house system, is not a good idea. It offers a lot of great things, but shouldn't be just plain upgraded to. The plug n' play compatibility of it is amazing, and Windows 7 does that even better. But that is a minor detail. If and when you get a new system, I think you will change your mind of Vista. I did. Even though I am using XP now, haha. But there are reasons for that. You just need a computer made to run vista.

[rpgsearcherz 5]

Okay, to clarify for some of you as to why SP1 is good...It has nothing to do with speed, and most changes you probably wouldn't and won't notice. It is mostly to do with compatibility.There were many things(gamespy and games and stuff) that would not run on Vista at all. With SP1 it fixed a lot of those issues. There are still some workarounds needed for various programs(like gamespy) but in general it's all pretty stable now.Security flaws were also fixed in the service pack. These you obviously would not notice.So don't expect SP's to speed up your PC or anything. They are just here to help fix issues. The speed of Vista is due to all of the junk it has in it, which Microsoft wouldn't take out.

[rayzoredge 2]

Well...I have seen most new computers come with at least 250GB of HDD space. That is surely enough for any normal user. Everyone knows that Vista is bloated in a lot of ways. And this feature is useful to prevent headaches, but the sacrifice is a lot of disk space. The funny thing is, Windows 7 is even worse. I would say it is safe to assume that most people will have large HDDs when Windows 7 is released, but 10GB just for the OS is outlandish. I had a 50GB partition set for it and it ate through that space very quickly.

With most new computers, yes, the space seems ample. But people are upgrading their gear, their gadgets, to include but not limited to new digital cameras, camcorders, and bloatware/software (like how most productivity pieces are now GBs instead of the usual hundreds of MBs in disk space usage). Individual pictures at their current resolutions now take up a MB each (typically), and count each twice if you shoot RAW. Home movies take up quite a bit of space themselves, mostly from hundreds of MBs up to the GB and over. And did I mention games? Games nowadays take anywhere from hundreds of MBs to multiple GBs. (I'm paying attention to my bias towards World of Warcraft, which is now, fully patched and expanded with Burning Crusades and Wrath of the Lich King, around 12GB... by itself.)

For software developers (and in this case, Microsoft) to assume that people have enough disk space to throw in resource-heavy and disk-space-heavy features and unnecessary or poor code is kind of a technologically-immoral deal. To hear that Windows 7 is even worse with this gives me even less incentive to even "upgrade" to an operating system that hasn't even been released yet. (Granted, it's in beta now, but if it's anything like Vista, there won't be a heck of a lot of hope from people that complained about Vista's issues.)

Buying a new machine with Vista is the way to go. Upgrading to it, unless you have a power house system, is not a good idea. It offers a lot of great things, but shouldn't be just plain upgraded to. The plug n' play compatibility of it is amazing, and Windows 7 does that even better. But that is a minor detail. If and when you get a new system, I think you will change your mind of Vista. I did. Even though I am using XP now, haha. But there are reasons for that. You just need a computer made to run vista.

The crazy part about this statement, although I'll agree with you to some extent, is that there are some systems out there that are branded with Vista-compliance and compatibility, yet run slower than obsolete machines running XP. I think there was some sort of lawsuit against Microsoft from a consumer complaining about false advertisement of her "Vista-ready" machine, on behalf of all consumers afflicted with the same issue. (I don't remember the turnout of that verdict.) Why should the consumer sink in even more money into a machine that will operate slower with Vista than it would with XP or any competent flavor of Linux? Why can't the software developer optimize code and protocol in such a way that the software works most efficiently with the hardware it has to its disposal?

I actually remember looking forward to Longhorn (Vista) when it was announced years ago. It looked good, and I was suckered into the eye candy. As far as usability goes, however, with my use of Ultimate, that image was ruined. As pretty as Windows 7 is going to be, I'm not going to be convinced if the operating system is still not user-friendly.

[rpgsearcherz 5]

Bringing up the space of the OS's...I find the only real issue being the slowdowns that are being experienced due to it.For example, a brand new Windows 2000 installation is like 300 MB's. You could fit all of that in your ram if you wanted. Vista is 4+ GB's, so unless you have a lot of ram your PC will be doing a lot of reading and writing while you are running various applications.For me, the issue isn't the HDD space as much as it is the ram.As for Rayzoredge...The game Age of Conan takes up almost 35 GB's of space for the normal installation. Biggest mmorpg I've seen, but it's graphics are phenomenal(spelling?)

[rayzoredge 2]

Bringing up the space of the OS's...I find the only real issue being the slowdowns that are being experienced due to it.
For example, a brand new Windows 2000 installation is like 300 MB's. You could fit all of that in your ram if you wanted. Vista is 4+ GB's, so unless you have a lot of ram your PC will be doing a lot of reading and writing while you are running various applications.

For me, the issue isn't the HDD space as much as it is the ram.

As for Rayzoredge...The game Age of Conan takes up almost 35 GB's of space for the normal installation. Biggest mmorpg I've seen, but it's graphics are phenomenal(spelling?)

I like the comparison of the hard disk requirement of Windows 2000 compared to Vista's... it seems rather insane how operating systems have bloated so much. At the same time, we've come a while from Windows 2000 to get to what we have today with Vista, Leopard, Ubuntu 8.10, etc. (Then again, a ton of people are still using XP, which is based on code from Windows 2000... ) Windows XP Professional in comparison requires 1.5GB of space. Crazy.

I know that Vista actually has new code in it, and that Microsoft took quite a plunge into unsafe waters, which would warrant the plethora of issues and the bad rep that Vista has dealt with. So in that sense, the operating system is okay, but with a two-year period of opportunity to right the wrongs (and consequently, make it much better than its predecessor), and the fact that Vista is still poorly regarded, it's hard not to say that it stinks, in my opinion.

And 35GB for a freakin' game? That is beyond outrageous... and that doesn't include any future patches or expansions for the game (if the developers plan on expanding). Does it come on a BR disc or 8 DVDs? It's amazing to know that I was kind of irked with the idea of 5 CDs for F.E.A.R...

[FruitRocks 0]

I like it, actually. It runs just fine on my machine (but it does say, "windows vista ready" on the front sticker ). i like it better than XP and it has never given me any issues but dual-booting with ubuntu, which ins't really vista's fault. Directx10 is nice also, with the cool Aero Glass interface :angel: the SP2 update has actually improved the performance of my pc, for some reason. never had that happen with XP.System Specs: Compaq Presario SR2050NXNVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS2GB DDR2 RAMIntel Penitum D Dual Core 2.8