Does Vista still Suck

Digitalcaveman

Digitalcaveman

Gawd
Joined
Dec 18, 2006
Messages
602
Guys,

All the hype on Vista. Still major equipment, new equipment, high end new systems having so much trouble with getting Vista drivers. What are your thoughts on a multi billion dollar company not playing nice with the emerging tech market. I'm targeting SLi compatibiliy, 108 Pre-N networking compatibility and high end gaming compatibiliy.

Vista in so many words.....isn't quite there yet.

DC:cool:
 
Not Microsoft's problem people were asleep at the wheel. XP had issues with drivers and software compatability too when it was first released. In fact, all versions of Windows did. Everyone clamored for the release and mocked its delays and for all those delays, who was ready for the release? If you go by history, you should wait until Service Pack 1 before thinking of getting into it if you expect everything to be flawless. Otherwise, its a work in progress, and what software isn't nowadays?
 
What are your thoughts on a multi billion dollar company not playing nice with the emerging tech market.
Click to expand...

What are your thoughts on companies not providing (any | good | working) drivers on time for their own technology?
 
These threads should draw a temporary vacation for whoever posts them. Between the misinformation, the lack of doing any reading of research on their own, and the ignorance of blaming one company for another's fault, is enough to make one's head explode.

That being said, this thread Sucks...note the capital "S".
 
Real nice comments. It's nice to see people or teeny boppers, not sure which, comment so energetically on one opinion. Crewzen, nice that was good.

The reason for the post for the tech-weeny's that are flaming me, is to try to find out what the reasons were for high end technology not meeting the expectations of the public. This is at least the 3rd major operating system from Microsoft and yes while I agree it's not all thier fault, I wanted to gain some opinions from the enthusiast realm that may have insight on why companies do not try to work together more fluidly. I mean there are major areas of concern with Vista, in some cases a rollout that went worse than XP when it first was released. With the advancement in OS technology today and driver signing, its amazing that Vista has not done a better job at high end hardware integation. Hey Brucedeluxe, I usually ignore your type but all I'll say is nice system. And exhaust, I like to add a bit of color to the end of my posts, sorry it disturbs you so much, Crewzen can help you deal with that issue, lol. djnes, or whatever your name maybe you need the vacation you sound a bit stressed, looks like I hit a nerve there. :p
 
You should word your post better. Your original invites verbal beat downs. And FYI, Digital signing is only required for Vista 64.
 
Digitalcaveman said:
Real nice comments.
Click to expand...

What do you expect? Your original post is full of loaded buzz words and blanket generalizations. The only thing accurate in your post is the fact that SLI support is a bit sketchy in Vista right now. Wait a few days... nVidia is supposed to have a surprise for us by ~March 1.

From your statements, it is clear you haven't tried running Vista on your primary box for a good 3-4 days. Try it. You'll like it.

If you read through the posts in this forum, you will find that the majority of users with a negative opinion of Vista haven't actually used it yet!
 
You maybe right on the post, could have worded better. Nasty, I do want Vista 64 as my processor is 64 bit, but no on the driver signing, in XP it checks for signing however we were able to "continue anyway" and still install the driver and it worked. The issue is compatibility. I really can't wait to get Vista but as I check, there are some major issues with getting drivers for some common high end hardware. Maybe your right, waiting till March/April might be the best advice anyone can give for newly built high end systems.

Thanks for the comments, except for the ban this idiot, no thanks for that.
 
Digitalcaveman said:
You maybe right on the post, could have worded better. But no on the driver signing, in XP we were able to "continue anyway" and still install the driver and it worked. The issue is compatibility. I really can't wait to get Vista but as I check, there are some major issues with getting drivers for some common high end hardware. Maybe your right, waiting till March/April might be the best advice anyone can give for newly built high end systems.

Thanks for the comments, except for the ban this idiot, no thanks for that.
Click to expand...

You can "Continue Anyway" in Vista as well.

See what I mean about how it is clear that you haven't actually used Vista? Yet here you are, spreading FUD....
 
Vista itself does not suck.... whoever the clowns in charge of writing drivers for thier products are... sucks.
 
Vista x64 DOES require digitally signed drivers however...he's probably getting that all confuzzled.
 
Digital, I wouldn't recommend Vista for you right now. There is no SLI support, and you have SLI. I highly recommend sticking with XP for a while (or longer, since it has everything you need).

I'll be sticking with XP until there is support for my 7950GX2... I didn't pay an arm and a leg for this thing back in the day to have it perform at 40%.
 
The 32 bit Vista is a pretty stable platform right now and the compatibility mode is almost automatic and works well....the 64 bit Vista gave me a fit with my applications, so I switched back. It doesn't suck, it's just waiting for updated drivers in most cases.
 
Symon14 said:
I'll be sticking with XP until there is support for my 7950GX2... I didn't pay an arm and a leg for this thing back in the day to have it perform at 40%.
Click to expand...

And that's a legitimate complaint. As long as the right company is blamed for it, then all is well.
 
Thanks Symon, I agree. So if you can get the driver to be recognized then you have to deal with mediocre performance.

Nasty, I know that but didn't know you could continue installing them, I saw a clip, maybe on CNET, not sure, that they said that during a review.
 
I like posts like this one, it make me laff.

So to answer your questions, the problems aren't with Vista or Microsoft, but with the Hardware Venders (and software for that matter), not writing Vista Drivers. Nvidia, Creative, numerous Network venders, etc, all should fire their Driver departments and get better replacements.

My solution, buy from companies that have good support. Creative Labs doesn't have drivers for their X-Fi cards (the beta one causes my Vista to Crash). So guess what, my next sound card wont be from Creative. I will probably do the same for Nvidia, as ATI has very good working Drivers for Vista.

With the delays MS has done with releasing Vista, there is no excuse for hardware MFG's from not being able to have working drivers.

Oh, and for the Driver Signing issue, turn off UAC (either 32bit or 64bit I have both installed) and it will take unsigned drivers.
 
I have to say I'm actually seriously impressed with Vista. Practically an unattended install. Downloading all needed drivers via windows update and so far the only apps I've had any problem whatsoever with was trying to find a good free 64bit antivirus.
 
Digitalcaveman said:
Thanks Symon, I agree. So if you can get the driver to be recognized then you have to deal with mediocre performance.

Nasty, I know that but didn't know you could continue installing them, I saw a clip, maybe on CNET, not sure, that they said that during a review.
Click to expand...

Not true. Performance is outstanding even with nvidia beta drivers. Better than XP!

For example, http://firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_aero_glass_performance/

For more details, try it, you'll like it!
 
calebb said:
Not true. Performance is outstanding even with nvidia beta drivers. Better than XP!

For example, http://firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_aero_glass_performance/

For more details, try it, you'll like it!
Click to expand...

No offense, but no. SLI performance in Vista is NOT outstanding. He has SLI. Do not recommend him do something that will provide the opposite of what you're suggesting. He has 2x $600 in his machine, and unless he wants to just sit around and have a big piece of wasted money in his computer, he should NOT upgrade to Vista.
 
Symon14 said:
He has 2x $600 in his machine, and unless he wants to just sit around and have a big piece of wasted money in his computer, he should NOT upgrade to Vista.
Click to expand...

He does?

edit: nevermind - I temporarily turned on sigs. I see that he does have SLI video cards. My previous posts regarding SLI support still stand.
 
Digitalcaveman said:
Anyone care to comment on performance with Vista and Gaming?
Click to expand...

I've tried a number of games, and I don't seem to have any issues or complaints. Call of Duty 2 runs perfect. Company of Heroes, AoE3, all seem to play as good or better than XP.
 
Digitalcaveman said:
Anyone care to comment on performance with Vista and Gaming?
Click to expand...

HL2, CS:S, BF2142, UT2004, MOO3, AoE3, WC3

All better performance on Vista than XP @ 1920x1200 (when 16:9 available - otherwise 1600x1200), most settings on high. (incidentally, you get "Free antialiasing" with the G80 series graphics cards - even when AA is disabled! Look at the rendering samples for the G7x versus G8x for more details)

P4-D 3.2GHz, 3GB RAM, 8800GTS (100.65 drivers), Dell 2405FPW
 
Hmmm, Vista and gaming....reminds me of Win98 vs. XP and gaming.

For those of you who remember that, Win98 ran games faster than WinXP did. It took a few driver releases to get WinXP close to the game performance of Win98. Heck, I would image, if you could get drivers for Win98, for some of the top of the line hardware, it would still beat the heck out of WinXP.:eek:

But for Vista, just like XP, you get it for more than the game performance currently. If game performance is all you care about, Win98 is your OS.:D
 
Bleh... this whole thing either smacks of trolling as there are what, 52 threads about "Does Vista suck/still suck/will always suck/etc" floating around, just not so many that ask the question outright... or... someone is looking for article material for some Vista bashing that's probably going to happen.

It's not even a month old yet, for Pete's Sake(c), give me a break (I'm a poet, doncha know it). Vista is fine, it's the drivers... and how many times does it have to be said:

"It's the drivers, it's always the drivers..."

The same thing happened with XP for the most part when it was first released, so this isn't an unusual circumstance. I remember reading THOUSANDS of "Does XP suck/still suck will always suck/etc" type threads here and most anywhere else, as well as in the XP support channels on EFnet that I've been part of since long before it was ever actually a retail product.

Search is your friend, if you want opinions. This place is loaded with them. And you know what they say about opinions... :cool:
 
bashPenguin said:
What are your thoughts on companies not providing (any | good | working) drivers on time for their own technology?
Click to expand...

I love running old hardware.:p

Vista Ultimate installed in about 35 minutes and all my drivers were included. Even my Lexmark all-in-one had a vista driver on the vista install disk. The only hardware that needed an update was my drawing tablet. The system runs just as fast as it did with XP too.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Bleh... this whole thing either smacks of trolling as there are what, 52 threads about "Does Vista suck/still suck/will always suck/etc" floating around, just not so many that ask the question outright.../QUOTE]

I should have rephrased the thread, was a poor choice, but your right on! I guess I'm just extremely dissapointed in the fact that SLi wasn't supported out of the gate and that's the fault of nVidia! shame on them, thier whole site blabbed on how great Vista 64 was going to be with SLi...:eek:
Click to expand...
 
djnes said:
Aside from not supporting SLI, Nvidia's drivers seem to be working just fine.
Click to expand...

I'm sick of seeing generalised comments like this, because they are misleading!

Pre-release versions of Vista would crash and burn on an SLI-enabled rig. That doesn't happen any more. Run Vista on an SLI-enabled rig and it works just fine. SLI IS supported.

At present, games will not utilise SLI to draw on the resources of both display cards. Everything else runs without issue. The game performance under SLI problem should be resolved by end of March. It's not really all that hard to maintain a dual-boot until then and fire up XP for those games which actually need to draw the power of both display cards.
 
Powerhouse2k said:
Hmmm, Vista and gaming....reminds me of Win98 vs. XP and gaming.

For those of you who remember that, Win98 ran games faster than WinXP did. It took a few driver releases to get WinXP close to the game performance of Win98. Heck, I would image, if you could get drivers for Win98, for some of the top of the line hardware, it would still beat the heck out of WinXP.:eek:

But for Vista, just like XP, you get it for more than the game performance currently. If game performance is all you care about, Win98 is your OS.:D
Click to expand...

WRONG!! IN NO WAY SHAPE or form would that POS Win98 OS ever beat Windows XP in modern gaming!!!!!

As for Vista and XP, XP is better right now!!

Lets not kid ourselves. There was a far bigger reason to upgrade to Windows XP when it first came (except if you were running 2000) out than there is to Vista right now if you already have XP. That is because there was a much bigger reaosn to get rid of a lousy OS like Win98, than there is to get rid of an already quality OS like Windows XP SP2.
 
Super Mario said:
WRONG!! IN NO WAY SHAPE or form would that POS Win98 OS ever beat Windows XP in modern gaming!!!!!

As for Vista and XP, XP is better right now!!

Lets not kid ourselves. There was a far bigger reason to upgrade to Windows XP when it first came (except if you were running 2000) out than there is to Vista right now if you already have XP. That is because there was a much bigger reaosn to get rid of a lousy OS like Win98, than there is to get rid of an already quality OS like Windows XP SP2.
Click to expand...

You need to hush.

Win98 is a fine OS. A great improvement over Win95.

You seem to be blowing flames out of your fingers based on the reckless ramblings of others. Have you any hands-on experience? Judging by your signature, it's a shame your immature, pretentious, narrow mind drives you so.

However, I gladly agree about WinME. Horrible.
 
GJSNeptune said:
You need to hush.

Win98 is a fine OS. A great improvement over Win95.

You seem to be blowing flames out of your fingers based on the reckless ramblings of others. Have you any hands-on experience?
Click to expand...


Not to change the topic, but Win98 was not a good OS. Windows 95 and Windows ME were even worse. Windows 2000 and Windows XP were light years better than any piece of crap Win9X based OS.

All I'm saying is that gaming would be far better on XP than it ever was for Windows 98 when it comes to modern gaming on modern hardware!!

Vista is not light years better than XP. It will probably turn out to be a moderate improvement over XP.

Thus there was a far bigger reason to escape Win9X than there is to escape the already good NT based OS Windows XP.
 
Super Mario said:
Not to change the topic, but Win98 was not a good OS. Windows 95 and Windows ME were even worse. Windows 2000 and Windows XP were light years better than any piece of crap Win9X based OS.

All I'm saying is that gaming would be far better on XP than it ever was for Windows 98 when it comes to modern gaming on modern hardware!!
Click to expand...

Why do you think Win98 is so horrible?

Super Mario said:
Vista is not light years better than XP. It will probably turn out to be a moderate improvement over XP.

Thus there was a far bigger reason to escape Win9X than there is to escape the already good NT based OS Windows XP.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by turn out? It's already been released. Have you ever used Win98 or Vista? On what are you basing your opinions?
 
GJSNeptune said:
Why do you think Win98 is so horrible?



What do you mean by turn out? It's already been released. Have you ever used Win98 or Vista? On what are you basing your opinions?
Click to expand...

Win98 is bad because it is not a true 32-bit OS. It is just a glorified DOS shell and hence not what a real OS should be like Linux, OS/2 WARP, Unix variants, or Windows NT falvored opertaing systems. It is bad compared to all those other operating systems. There were true 32-bit operating systems available long before Windows 98 was released and they were a lot better. The ones I listed above were such examples.


I know Vista has already been released, but it hasn't been out long enough to know for sure how good it is or if it will be better than Windows XP.
 
scotlandrocks said:
I have to say I'm actually seriously impressed with Vista. Practically an unattended install. Downloading all needed drivers via windows update and so far the only apps I've had any problem whatsoever with was trying to find a good free 64bit antivirus.
Click to expand...

My experience as well, just with the 32-bit version.

Can we please get over Win 98? Honestly, guys, it is a ten-year-old OS. Let it stay dead.

This thread title is funny. Funny in the same way that one guy would ask another guy "hey, have you stopped beating your wife?"
 
GreNME said:
My experience as well, just with the 32-bit version.

Can we please get over Win 98? Honestly, guys, it is a ten-year-old OS. Let it stay dead.

This thread title is funny. Funny in the same way that one guy would ask another guy "hey, have you stopped beating your wife?"
Click to expand...

Exactly. Let Win98 stay dead. I was just amazed someone would come and say it would perform better in games than XP today if there were drivers which is about as untrue as can be because it is a 10 year old OS based on 50 year old technology.

Windows XP is a 5.5 year old OS based on 15 years old technology.
 
Meh, I still say that Vista is just 2[H]ard4SUM:eek: Really do you think that XP or any other version of windows was rock solid right at release?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top