T1 Vista Test

[Blakhart]

After looking into it, I feel that Vista has the chance to be the best m$ os so far. IF you have multiple cores, gobs of mem, the fastest grafix card, and a measure of disk space. It's like going from 98 to xp all over again, this time with much steeper hardware needs. I am running either xp or 2k3, not going to Vista soon (since I am running a xp1600 and a gf6800gt), but it doesn't scare me like it did before.

[bob]

lol fix has a debt to settle with god, ignore his anal traits, he is fuzzy on the inside.

[BART_SIMPSON416]

I want to use the HD space and CPU power for something else then running flashy desktop graphics.

HD Space: 15 gigs, maybe 20 gigs. By today's standards, this is nothing. Some games occupy more space than your average OS install.

Flashy Desktop Graphics: A few clicks away and you're sitting at Win98 style desktop.

You're biased against Windows, obviously, because anything you have to say against it can be invalidated.

That simply beats the use out of my multi disk setup here.
The only '20 gig' is the exact size of the disk I install my OSes on.
I currently have 3 operating systems on that HD. Windows XP Pro, Debian Linux and FreeBSD. Of all of those FreeBSD takes the least space. Win XP takes the most. And basically vista still is a memory hog, even if you turn of those graphics.

I've had Vista installed for a few hours (already was tired of it).

Lets see at CPU usage:
XP: 3% normally
Vista: 20% normally
Linux: 1% normally
BSD: 0.2% normally

RAM usage:
XP: 160mb (fresh install + drivers)
Vista: 600mb (fresh install, standard windows drivers)
Linux: about 90-100mb with IceWM as window manager
BSD: also about 90-100mb

In the end BSD wins on speed and resource usage.

And in the end about HD space, I have more then enough HD space to install Windows Vista, but I rather use it for something else. RAM, more then enough of it. And the CPU is far from outdated, actually most ratings rate it as high. The only thing you could mention is the graphics card but that doesn't really matter since I don't want a fancy GUI.

And I'm not even going to start about Vista its boot and install time >_>

[King Bear]

Don't listen to the haters, keep wrangling that code fix!

Agreed!!
Also, DX10 uses a new pipeline in your (new GPU) to take the heat off of your processor to allow your processor to do other tasks (A.I, bumping, etc.) So far the only gpu that supports DX10 is the 8800, but a whole new line is coming out soon.

It might be hard to understand now, but while you're playing games from this year and years before I'll be playing the future of gaming that can only be accomplished by Vista and DX10. If you've never seen SS's of (the game Nofix mentioned) Crysis then you can't even grasp what DX10 and Vista are going to do for gaming.

[BART_SIMPSON416]

Agreed!!
Also, DX10 uses a new pipeline in your (new GPU) to take the heat off of your processor to allow your processor to do other tasks (A.I, bumping, etc.) So far the only gpu that supports DX10 is the 8800, but a whole new line is coming out soon.

Don't talk about buying a new gfx card to me.
I'm saving up for an X1950 Pro...
The method that the graphics card does stuff for the cpu isn't new. Certain drivers already supported that on their own, but no software was actually using it cause it was changing per version.

It might be hard to understand now, but while you're playing games from this year and years before I'll be playing the future of gaming that can only be accomplished by Vista and DX10.

I doubt that, a lot of people don't want to use vista cause of the system requirements. They're too high.

If you've never seen SS's of (the game Nofix mentioned) Crysis then you can't even grasp what DX10 and Vista are going to do for gaming.

I've seen screenshots of Crysis. Good to know that similar things are possible with any other rendering method (the main alternative is OpenGL).

If microsoft would be reasonable they would release DX10 for XP as well. But they won't cause its probably just another thing that is integrated into the core of vista.

[Perrinoia]

And I'm not even going to start about Vista its boot and install time >_>

my dad's new thinkpad boots vista faster than my gaming machine boots xp.
the only thing his thinkpad has over my comp is a duel core processor.
my comp has more ram, video memory, hard drive space, and a bigger screen. though his also runs at a higher resolution.

[Kigen]

Windows haters, gotta kick them in the nuts.

People are saying the same doggy doo they did about XP when it was released.

[NoFiXette]

And I'm not even going to start about Vista its boot and install time >_>

Good, because Vista boots faster than my XP install. Vista's boot is around 10 seconds on my box - that's from power-up to password entry.

[BART_SIMPSON416]

And I'm not even going to start about Vista its boot and install time >_>

Good, because Vista boots faster than my XP install. Vista's boot is around 10 seconds on my box - that's from power-up to password entry.

The small button in the start menu is standby or sleep mode. Forgot what it exactly was. Indeed that boots faster.

My XP, Linux and BSD installs also boot in less then 10 seconds from standby. Sleep mode takes a bit longer since the hard drive needs some time to spin up to working speed.

[NoFiXette]

Are you stupid, or just stupid?

From Powerup to Password Entry - 10-12 seconds. I'm not talking about sleep mode, I don't use sleep mode. I turn my box off when I'm not here - as it's wasted energy.

Also, to address the rest of your last post, 600 megs ram? Okay, well, we've already discussed SuperFetch, which is also an option. Vista preloads application data into memory, memory that is other wise wasted because it's not being used. There are many in-depth articles on this - I suggest you read them, before you molly about 'used' ram.

CPU usage, 20% is normal? Not quite. I've got doggy doo running in the background, and mine hovers around 0%-1%. So, eh?

Either way, you're full of doggy doo...and so far biased it just doesn't make any sense. You're not going to convert anyone, and you're not making Vista look bad by reporting complete bulldoggy doo specs.

[BART_SIMPSON416]

Are you stupid, or just stupid?

From Powerup to Password Entry - 10-12 seconds. I'm not talking about sleep mode, I don't use sleep mode. I turn my box off when I'm not here - as it's wasted energy.

Also, to address the rest of your last post, 600 megs ram? Okay, well, we've already discussed SuperFetch, which is also an option. Vista preloads application data into memory, memory that is other wise wasted because it's not being used. There are many in-depth articles on this - I suggest you read them, before you about 'used' ram.

CPU usage, 20% is normal? Not quite. I've got running in the background, and mine hovers around 0%-1%. So, eh?

Either way, you're full of ...and so far biased it just doesn't make any sense. You're not going to convert anyone, and you're not making Vista look bad by reporting complete specs.

What vista are you using???
You're clearly not using Ultimate...

[Kigen]

He could have disabled a few things, but I doubt that has a huge role. But then again I haven't used Vista.

[NoFiXette]

What vista are you using???
You're clearly not using Ultimate...

Vista Ultimate
Vista Rating: 5.4

What was your Vista Rating?

[NoFiXette]

He could have disabled a few things, but I doubt that has a huge role. But then again I haven't used Vista.

Haven't touched anything, other than display settings and enabled Aero.

[robindegen]

vista boots very slightly faster then XP sp2. However i run SP1 and that continues to run faster. It's not so much the boot time, it's the time it needs to actually start a program. Takes a load longer on vista for me. I had a couple of people comming to me that bought a new computer with vista asking me to put XP on after they tried vista. And believe me, they all wanted vista, and now they all have xp again

[Plasmatic]

Dell is offering XP on oem machines again.

Users either
a) Haven't given it a chance.
b) Are ignorant of the way it works.
c) Or are actually right.

I'm not convinced either way because I have no first hand experience. Yet.

[NoFiXette]

vista boots very slightly faster then XP sp2. However i run SP1 and that continues to run faster. It's not so much the boot time, it's the time it needs to actually start a program. Takes a load longer on vista for me. I had a couple of people comming to me that bought a new computer with vista asking me to put XP on after they tried vista. And believe me, they all wanted vista, and now they all have xp again

Sure.

This isn't directed towards you, but more-so Bart_Simpson...

The 'issues' you people are coming up with are all trivial. Boot-time? Who cares about boot-time? Why are you restarting your computer so much that you notice boot-time? Idle resource usage? Not my first concern when it comes to desktop-computing.

You don't see me trashing Linux because I use Windows. It's actually the opposite, because I used to run Linux full-time, and I'd act the same way Bart's acting right now. I'd make stuff up, I'd read all these anti-MS articles then use those biased articles to further support my habit of bashing MS. Eventually I grew out of it, and lost the Linux mentality altogether.

I guess if you've actually used Vista, and come to the conclusion on your own that it isn't what you're looking for, or isn't nearly the OS that FreeBSD is ( sure ), then I might take your rants more seriously.

[Quimica]

It's like someone saying "Tribes sucks" when they've never played it. There is a term for people like that. Sheep. Try it for yourself or keep the second, third, and fourth-hand information to yourself.

[BART_SIMPSON416]

What vista are you using???
You're clearly not using Ultimate...

Vista Ultimate
Vista Rating: 5.4

What was your Vista Rating?

I forgot but it was around 4 I think.
I can't complain about the speed once it was loaded but I simply don't like how it kept the cpu this high. My CPU idles at room temperature in any other OS. :/

[Plasmatic]

You don't see me trashing Radio because I use Television. It's actually the opposite, because I used to run Radio full-time, and I'd act the same way Bart's acting right now. I'd make stuff up, I'd read all these anti-Network articles then use those biased articles to further support my habit of bashing the Networks. Eventually I grew out of it, and lost the Radio mentality altogether.

I guess if you've actually used Television, and come to the conclusion on your own that it isn't what you're looking for, or isn't nearly the experience that Radio is ( sure ), then I might take your rants more seriously.

Edited for hilarity. Not because his post was funny, or I disagree, but because I see this behavior all the time in various unrelated situations, and it drives me nuts. Nobody likes being wrong, so they fight tooth and nail to prove to themselves that they aren't. NoFix is right, you guys need to figure it out for yourself.