Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Vista really this bad??

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by airborne5par7an View Post
    FYI: XP was complete **** when it first came out. It was in a terrible state (worse than Vista). I haven't had a single problem with Vista. Either people like to over exaggerate (which many like to do), or they do not know how to use a computer. People just like to complain that is the only explanation. OH NO I GOT AN EXTRA 500 ON 3D MARK WITH XP COMPARED TO VISTA.
    What drugs are you on dude? I bet you got them from Microsoft. It's not that people like to over exaggerate, it's some people that like to lie to themselves, like you.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Lazymutant View Post
      im running it at medium

      oh and my system is not low end...
      its well above what is recremended for a system to be able to run vista ultimate
      I meant it as a gaming machine, it really is low end. And Crysis has ridiculous requirements, a single 8800GT/X is not enough to run it in high settings in HD resolution with comfortable framerate... not to mention very high DX10 mode...
      But I'm a bit spoiled by 1920x1200 and very high framerates in other games.

      Comment


        Originally posted by antych View Post
        I meant it as a gaming machine, it really is low end. And Crysis has ridiculous requirements, a single 8800GT/X is not enough to run it in high settings in HD resolution with comfortable framerate... not to mention very high DX10 mode...
        But I'm a bit spoiled by 1920x1200 and very high framerates in other games.
        well even so all i need to upgrade is my vid card

        everything else vista rated at 5 or above

        Comment


          Originally posted by Archon3 View Post
          I dont care what anyone tells me, vista is a giant, worthless, resource hog, huge pile of f*d up code malware rubbish. I hate few things as much as i do vista. Reasons? = 1. performance loss is huge. Those who disagree, upgrade 2 XP, and see how much more performance u get.
          2. Horrible sound. Vista has absolutely no support for any eax, hardware mixing, openal, dts, prologic etc. My rather high end sound system is nothing more than loud stereo in vista. Back to XP, the sound improvement is reason enough to stay. The sound went from dull, empty and flat to vibrant, clear, full and loud.
          3. Windows itself. Vista is slow. Copying and pasting takes forever. 55 idle processes? Wtf? Its huge aswell. And the visual effects end up making windows even more sluggish.
          I have no doubt that vista has or is being fixed up,,, but i wont downgrade to that ****ing **** ever again. Dx10 is a waste. There is NO point to vista at all. Seriously. What is the benefit? Not to mention, internet is clearly slower in vista aswell. Btw, i had vista ultimate, and the same pc as indicated below.
          Pure Nonsense!

          In Vista u are able to use OpenAL. (With Alchemy u are able to emulate Directsound and EAX as well)

          Vista is slower in games. Sometimes even to 50% slower. (dependent on the game and drivers)

          BUT: in normal ways its faster than XP, because it uses RAM for caching. It uses more CPU resources than XP, its 5 - 10% slower. Than no RAM is shown as free is not bad. it shows only that its used. But if you start an application RAM is freed up for it.

          Vista is good for playin old games, it has much better system compatibility and OS emulation (older windows versions). Old applications, wich didnt start/ functioning properly in XP or Win2000 will run in Vista like a charm. (3Dmark 99, or Final Fantasy 7 and 8) Old games will work better than under XP. It has new functions to ensure compatibility to future applications. In a few years all peoples will upgrade, because the hardware is able to run Vista + new games.

          No one will care about FPS loss in the future if hardware is fast enough.

          The FPS loss is the same from Windows 9x to XP. XP is slow, too.

          In HDD performance WindowsXP is slow like a snake. If you want performance, you should grab WindowsME. Me is the fastest OS MS ever has released. The HDD performance is extreme fast.

          Comment


            It is fact that XP is faster in most games than Vista. But WinXP slower than Win98? WinME actually good at something?

            Win98SE did indeed show to be slightly faster than WinXP when it was FIRST RELEASED. But the games tested (current then) would all now be considered very old. I don't think I've ever seen any benchmarks that show the old Win98SE running against WinXP SP2 in current games (would be interesting). The main problem with Win98 is that many new games released now actually REQUIRE Win2k/XP to even run.

            WinME? If you believe ME was good at anything except frustrating the end user then I don't know what to tell ya. It would be fun to try it out with modern hard drives (will SATA even work?), assuming you could run a test long enough before it crashed.

            The fact of the matter is that MOST power users in the know go back to WinXP after trying out Vista. Go browse any tech forum where the advanced crowd roams and you'll see that Vista is widely regarded by many as a n00b OS, one used by folks who buy new Dells. Hopefully after a few SP's it will mature, but as of now the serious negatives far outweigh a pretty desktop and DX10 IMO. Still waiting for that uber-programmer out there to hack DX10 into XP. I know they say it can't be done, but stranger things have happened.

            Comment


              Originally posted by Slippster View Post
              Ditto to all of the above points!


              uses 800 megs of RAM sitting idle? DOING NOTHING?
              aww HAYELL NAWW!
              nope reformat install XP as the one-and-only- operating system.

              Vista is WinME in hooker clothes LOL
              It uses that much ram as it caches commonly used programs so they boot up quicker when you want to use them, if a program is lauched that isnt in this list and ram is running low vista then deallocates this "cached" ram to the program that needs it most.

              complaining about ram usage being up to 800meg when idle is pointless, its not like your using it at that time is it?! It gets freed up when you need it so read up on how it works before spouting nonsense.

              I know vista has its flaws and im not reacting in a fanboy/flamer manner but at this stage xp had its own as well. Much like this game has its flaws.

              Comment


                Originally posted by nighty View Post
                It is fact that XP is faster in most games than Vista. But WinXP slower than Win98? WinME actually good at something?

                Win98SE did indeed show to be slightly faster than WinXP when it was FIRST RELEASED. But the games tested (current then) would all now be considered very old. I don't think I've ever seen any benchmarks that show the old Win98SE running against WinXP SP2 in current games (would be interesting). The main problem with Win98 is that many new games released now actually REQUIRE Win2k/XP to even run.

                WinME? If you believe ME was good at anything except frustrating the end user then I don't know what to tell ya. It would be fun to try it out with modern hard drives (will SATA even work?), assuming you could run a test long enough before it crashed.

                The fact of the matter is that MOST power users in the know go back to WinXP after trying out Vista. Go browse any tech forum where the advanced crowd roams and you'll see that Vista is widely regarded by many as a n00b OS, one used by folks who buy new Dells. Hopefully after a few SP's it will mature, but as of now the serious negatives far outweigh a pretty desktop and DX10 IMO. Still waiting for that uber-programmer out there to hack DX10 into XP. I know they say it can't be done, but stranger things have happened.
                Why should a sata drive not work in WinME? It will be handled like a IDE or SCSI/RAID Controller depending on the driver and BIOS setting.

                WinME is buggy as hell, and today, its not possible to get the full performance out of it (No grafic-card drivers are released anymore, some mainboards dont have IDE/chipset drivers for Win9x), but if you would benchmark an older comp it will run extremly fast with WinME.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by antych View Post
                  I see you really like to add value to the conversation...</sarcasm>
                  UT3 is as good example as any other games, it's actually an ideal example because as most of the games it looks the same in DX10. And the minority of games that have some small improvements usually performs like ****. That's pretty much it.

                  Well spoken !!

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X