I'm using Vista for the first time and so far it sucks. Tips for better performance?
- Thread starter U5230
- Start date
- Status
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Sure it is, or else 7 wouldn't be so much faster.rex64 said:
Though I agree with you that a lot of people try to talk authoritatively about computers when they don't understand the basics about RAM and Superfetch.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie said:
In computers with 1gb of less 7 is better than Vista. On the PC's I've tried it on with 2gb+ they are no different, and take exactly the same amount of RAM as each other after a fresh boot.
I've pre-ordered Windows 7 as its the latest and I'm a geek like that, but to me it feels like Vista SP3 and not the second coming of christ as some make out.
SolsticeZero
Banned
This may or may not help with the issue, but I had a belkin usb 54g adapter that did the same thing to me in vista. I found out it was the belkin drivers that were screwing it up. So I cracked open the adapter, looked at the realtek chip inside it, and went to realteks site to download the drivers for that chip. Works like a charm now!
And honeslty all the Vista hate is pretty bad. I used Vista, and I will agree that pre SP1 it was shit, but, IF YOU HAVE THE PC TO RUN IT, Vista works great.
And honeslty all the Vista hate is pretty bad. I used Vista, and I will agree that pre SP1 it was shit, but, IF YOU HAVE THE PC TO RUN IT, Vista works great.
MultiCore
Member
http://laptopvideo2go.com/Himuro said:
Laptops have required custom drivers for ages.
If you go back to Vista or XP, be sure to get the appropriate driver from this site.
I'm not sure why that resolution is now showing in 7, but I'm willing to bet you haven't updated your drivers with the latest ATI or NVidia drivers.
I recommend you switch to Windows 7 RC1. Its free and perfectly legal until spring 2011.
The netcode is vastly improved upon vista. My wireless internet has never been more stable. With WinXP sp3, I had to install the NIC software to get a stable wireless signal. Using the WinXP zero configuration program was faulty. With Windows 7, I have no reason to install any software.
The netcode is vastly improved upon vista. My wireless internet has never been more stable. With WinXP sp3, I had to install the NIC software to get a stable wireless signal. Using the WinXP zero configuration program was faulty. With Windows 7, I have no reason to install any software.
I knew i was beaten to the punch.2 Minutes Turkish said:
BUT
I love this arguement, usually presented by people who have done zero research on the operating system their berating.
Vista *looks* like a memory hog because of the superfetcher, it remembers your most used programs and preloads portions of these programs into memory to make performance faster on your most used applications. the second the memory is needed for an application that is not preloaded into memory it is released and used for that application.
anyway, enjoy mac osx.
You mean March 2010. Then it starts nagging you and rebooting every couple of hours until it completely deactivates itself in June 2010.Mareg said:
Anyway, to the OP, since you've already decided to go with build 7100, when you get your Windows 7 upgrade in October, just be sure to do a clean install since a regular upgrade will just rename the Windows folder and stack a new Windows folder, creating more unnecessary space and clutter on your hard drive.
I've been using build 7600 for a couple days now, and it's solved a few quirks that I've had with 7100 (i.e. doesn't resume after sleep, wireless bouncing issues).
However, 7600 still doesn't solve why WMP 12 eats up a lot of CPU cycles...
Chittagong
Gold Member
I'm using Vista on my MacBook Pro too and overall it's pretty nice and snappy. Best of all, I can play games with it.
Since this is a ranting thread, I do have two things that annoy me
Settings are an utter mess. Trying to setup a monitor, keyboard, bluetooth or a connecting is ridiculously complicated. Some smart ass thought that giving things names such as "Mobility Center" and hiding things like resolution under "Personalization" would be a great idea. The whole Control Panel is an epitome of UI design gone horribly wrong. I bet the same person designed it who invented the XP Dog.
System fonts are ugly. Segoe UI is on for headlines and such, but the small fonts look just terrible. Compare for example Facebook on Vista to Facebook on OSX.
I wonder if Windows 7 fixes either of these?
Since this is a ranting thread, I do have two things that annoy me
Settings are an utter mess. Trying to setup a monitor, keyboard, bluetooth or a connecting is ridiculously complicated. Some smart ass thought that giving things names such as "Mobility Center" and hiding things like resolution under "Personalization" would be a great idea. The whole Control Panel is an epitome of UI design gone horribly wrong. I bet the same person designed it who invented the XP Dog.
System fonts are ugly. Segoe UI is on for headlines and such, but the small fonts look just terrible. Compare for example Facebook on Vista to Facebook on OSX.
I wonder if Windows 7 fixes either of these?
Chittagong
Gold Member
Two more aesthetic things that just say "we don't care":
Wallpapers inside window frames. No I don't want your shitty devianart inside all frames and windows, can I just have the simple glossy frame thank you:
Boot up visuals. Doesn't look very "Advanced" to me, I used to see crappy graphics like these on my daddy's computer in 1983. Why am I seeing them in 2009 on a cutting edge computer? Because they. Just. Don't. Care.
Wallpapers inside window frames. No I don't want your shitty devianart inside all frames and windows, can I just have the simple glossy frame thank you:
Boot up visuals. Doesn't look very "Advanced" to me, I used to see crappy graphics like these on my daddy's computer in 1983. Why am I seeing them in 2009 on a cutting edge computer? Because they. Just. Don't. Care.
smallmouth
Member
Chittagong said:
The boot visuals were trimmed because MS wanted to encourage developers to do the same. Silly splash pages only slow boot times.
The easiest option on a PC with 1gb of RAM is to double it. A simpler and cheaper way to raise performance is Vistas Ready Boost feature, which uses the flash memory of a USB stick as additional RAM. Simply plug the USB flash drive in and select My Computer, right-click on the USB drive, select the Ready Boost tab, choose Use this device and select as much space as you can. 2gb is optimal for 1gb of RAM.
Does this trick boost game performance?
Does this trick boost game performance?
Chittagong
Gold Member
smallmouth said:
Trimmed is fine, black and white and all that, but does it really have to look exactly like DOS 25 years ago? Did nobody really have the time to give it a visual and typographic overhaul, even if simple? OSX bootup isn't flashy either, but it at least has antialiasing and uses the same fonts and look as the rest of the OS.
smallmouth
Member
Chittagong said:
I'm all for nice details, but do you use or even see the boot menu that much? I know you're dual-booting, but I only restart my Vista machine when an update requires it.
I guess I don't understand the "setting up a monitor, etc" complaint either. You right-click on the desktop and select Personalize instead of Properties. If anything Personalize is more descriptive.
. . . or is it you're having trouble finding the second mouse button on your Mac?
I keed!
If you don't like the Control Panel, use the Classic View. Just like everything else MS, there's 15 different ways to do the same thing.
I'm not suggesting the Vista UI is perfect, or even great. It's a stepping stone.
SolsticeZero
Banned
Dougald said:Fancy boot visuals does not a good OS make.
GRUB bootloader:
But then, OSX is more style than substance
Agreed, good sir.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
Chittagong said:
Why would you ever navigate the control panel to change resolutions...?
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
On this episode of UNIX users trashing other UNIX users...Dougald said:Fancy boot visuals does not a good OS make.
GRUB bootloader:
But then, OSX is more style than substance
I have an Inspiron 6000 powered by:g35twinturbo said:
Pentium M Dothan 770 (2.13 GHz, 2 MB L2 Cache) I upgraded this myself.
2 GB PC2-5300 memory (Kingston, bought it three years ago when DDR2 was expensive)
160 GB Samsung Spinpoint M5 PATA (2 platters, 5400 RPM)
ATi X300 64 MB memory
WXGA (1280x800) matte screen (thinking of upgrading to WSXGA)
I think this computer can only run Vista x86 (32-bit).
Yes, this is something that bugs the shit out of me.
Vista was actually designed to USE the hardware you have. You can't judge it the same way you might have XP. When you're idle, it uses the available memory to speed up your experience. When I first installed it, I was concerned by the higher memory usage and constant HDD paging, but the performance is much faster than XP on the same machine. With XP, blinking HDD light meant "please wait, I'm busy", but that's not the case with Vista.
I think it's fair to increase the requirements of the OS as well. Vista was released in, what, 2007? XP was a 2001 release! It would be ridiculous to expect the requirements to remain the same. Vista was designed for modern hardware and it runs much faster than XP on that hardware.
Anyone try the latest version of MaxOS on a Mac from 2002?! I suspect it would not run particularly well in comparison to the version that existed back then.
Fortunately, Windows 7 seems to be even faster while people in 2009 own better hardware.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
claviertekky said:
I don't think you understand how 64bit works... The only problem you could run into is driver support for your stuff.
Pentium Ms I believe can't run 64 bit code? So you don't understand.Zaraki_Kenpachi said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M
I meant to say Windows x86 (32-bit).
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
claviertekky said:
Bah, my mistake. I totally didn't read that as pentium M for whatever reason. Ya, it wasn't built with 64 bit architecture so it can't.
I been complain about Vista for years now due to a computer my wife purchased. She got the low end laptop with 512M memory. I was wondering why my friends computer had no issues and he has 6G. I'm sure if I just update that it will help. Using the perfomance test, it scored a 2.0 rating. You get what you pay for when you try to get the bare min.
Ultimo hombre
Banned
Yes. Windows 7 is a beautiful thing. Esp with XP virtualization. All the legacy support without any of the burden on the main OS.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
Himuro said:SO SEXY
that's it, getting 7 now.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
UAC is leagues better in 7. Vista UAC sucks.Mudkips said:
Just because something has been implemented doesn't mean that it's a good implementation.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie said:
This, UAC is way to heavy in Vista i found by default. Over at my dad's i installed a couple of things that i have installed here on 7, damn the UAC seemed to be in my face more on Vista. ANd it's easier to alter the levels in 7.
Damn i love 7.
Win7 is a beautiful thing.
I have had a few compatibility problems though, particularly with homebrew/WIP stuff. Unfortunately Win7's "XP Mode" virtualisation requires a CPU type that I don't have, so I have to run XP the old fashioned VMware way.
The other catch - the RC is Ultimate. When it starts shutting down in March and you have to pay for a licence, you either pay the full Ultimate price or go cheaper and lose features. GG Microsoft.
I have had a few compatibility problems though, particularly with homebrew/WIP stuff. Unfortunately Win7's "XP Mode" virtualisation requires a CPU type that I don't have, so I have to run XP the old fashioned VMware way.
The other catch - the RC is Ultimate. When it starts shutting down in March and you have to pay for a licence, you either pay the full Ultimate price or go cheaper and lose features. GG Microsoft.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Sew said:
I dunno. I think most people will be more than happy with Windows 7 Professional. Besides, Ultimate only costs $20 more than Professional and the only difference is that Ultimate includes the following features:
AppLocker
BitLocker Drive Encryption
BranchCache Distributed Cache
DirectAccess
Subsystem for Unix-based Applications
Multilingual User Interface Pack
Virtual Hard Disk Booting
Most people won't even know what the above features are and thus won't be missing them. It is only $20 more to get the above features, so it isn't like they are asking for much more to get the Ultimate edition. Home Premium seems kind of shitty this time around, but it should work fine for people who just want to check their email, browse the internet and create the occasional document.
Personally I'm going to get Ultimate for the ability to easily change the interface language.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
KHarvey16 said:
Man it just shows that they don't care and aren't putting in an effort! LAZY DEVS
- Status