I give up.

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wrench00

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Messages
3,423
After 3 months of using vista Ultimate I give up this OS just is SO unstable. Random crashes, lockups and data loss is enough for me. I am pretty tech oriented and I don't mind the occasional crash or hickup but this is a constant everyday occurance. I have had enough. The OS is going to sit on my shelf and collect dust I'm going back to xp64. Imho I think the TheInq was right by calling vista = Me2. Some of you guys have had luck and like the OS its been completly opposite experience for me. I like microsoft I buy their products but I do now regret purchasing Vista.
 
Just out of curiosity; what are the specs of your System?

Vista has worked great for me as an OS, but the nVidia drivers and creative drivers killed it, so I've since gone back to XP, but once it all catches up; I'll be more than happy to load up Vista again. Just doing 32-bit though now as compatibility is better.

I bet you'd have better luck with 32-bit Vista.
 
I have been using Vista Ultimate 64 bits on my system. I am not sure what exactly problems you are having.

The only gripe I have is that webcamxp would not work on Vista 64 bits. I wanted to stream my desktop to few friends but however, one of the friend has 32 bits and is able to do so.
 
I've had the same experience with Vista Business... it was enough to make me convert to OS X.
 
DFI RS482
amd 3800 x2
4 gigs of ram
4X 320ks 320 GigWD
x1900xtx
LG Combo Burner
Enermax Liberty.
 
Wrench00 said:
DFI RS482
amd 3800 x2
4 gigs of ram
4X 320ks 320 GigWD
x1900xtx
LG Combo Burner
Enermax Liberty.
Click to expand...

Looks like a great match for Vista! Would you like assistance troubleshooting your issues?

Check the event log - anything interesting there?

Which drivers have you been using?

What version of motherboard/chipset drivers did you install?
 
Ater I upgraded my ram I ran the vista mem checker no probs. The problems are geting worse in vista, stutering, my xtx running full blast without aero and can't forget the horrible opengl performance..
 
If you were running a 64-bit edition of Vista, you might try the 32-bit iteration which tends to have more mature and stable drivers and applications.

Do you have a specific need for a 64-bit OS other than to address the 4GB of RAM you purchased?
 
Stellar said:
If you were running a 64-bit edition of Vista, you might try the 32-bit iteration which tends to have more mature and stable drivers and applications.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting statement, given that Vista x64 was designed to only allow official MS-signed WHQL drivers. In fact people are annoyed because they have to hack Vista JUST to install an unsigned driver.

I put slightly more faith in a WHQL driver than a leaked driver someone found on a fansite.

Can you elaborate on these immature and unstable Vista x64 drivers you speak of?

---

On-topic, my Vista x64 install has been peachy keen. I'm just wondering if I really need it. It's a laptop which will never do DX10, and Vista eats up alot of disk space.. The GUI does nothing for me, I don't necessarily like nor dislike it. I don't find it improves my experience at all. Th system has been stable though, and speed is not a problem either. I've been tinkering with a Dreamcast emulator lately and it runs just fine.

If I get motivated I might switch it over to XP64.
 
I ran Maya 64 bit. For a while I used my desktop just as a render node did all the modeling on my lappy.

I am sick of having to hack crap just to install some drivers. I had enough of there hair pulling experiences. I will just go back to xp64 no need for vista. I give up, why did I upgrade in the first place I will never know.
 
Well all I can say is mine works great. I also have several $5,000.00+ programs for solid modeling and photo editing. All the programs work in 32 bit mode with no problems.

The only problem I have with Vista 64 is no 64 bit drivers and that Internet speed for downloads is slo.

Other than that I am happy with my purchase of Vista Ultimate Retail.
 
I'm running Vista 64 Ultimate on 2 rigs with very different specs. I can tell you both computers are running extremely well. No problems with driver support for all my hardware. Either you have faulty hardware or you are doing something wrong.
 
also have a very good experience here. I am not sure what people are talking about hacked drivers and the like, I there is no need to hack any drivers, most likely that's the source of some peoples problem, I have run betas and whql drivers with no special installs to get them working.

With my success the only 3 things that can be wrong is; 1. hardware frailer or compatibility, 2. software incompatibility 3. user error.
 
to be honest, i'm not sure what the problem is, but I doubt its vista that is doing it =p

I've had Vista ultimate x64 on my machine, x32 on my brothers for a bit now, the only complaint really was nv drivers before, i havnt had a single crash on my box yet or my brothers
 
rrrriiiggghhhttt...... the *!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!sm in this thread is getting ridiculous......it could be user error or it could be maybe poor drivers.

Ok to the OP, I had similar problems at first with Vista 32 bit version. It took me a while to figure out the problem but its basically every bsod I would scour the error messages for some relevant information. some times the BSOD will give you the troublesome dll that caused the error. Next thing you want to do is, try to find out what driver that .dll belongs to. For me its was microsofts Nforce4 audio driver.....disabling sound fixed the error. Ummm .... Then when the driver is up to date, if not try updating any driver you have maybe two drivers are conflicting.
 
Wrench00 said:
Ater I upgraded my ram I ran the vista mem checker no probs. The problems are geting worse in vista, stutering, my xtx running full blast without aero and can't forget the horrible opengl performance..
Click to expand...

so does the part in bold mean it was bad in some other OS before and it was "getting worse in vista" or......?
 
calebb said:
Looks like a great match for Vista! Would you like assistance troubleshooting your issues?
Click to expand...

I think this is the first thing that has to be asked.

Do you want help, or are you just going to complain about it??
 
There is no need for me to use vista. Why on god green earth would I keep an OS installed when I have to disable half of it. You guys think that I didn't try to trouble shoot these errors I spent way to much time on these errors. Xp64 works just fine no problems. Waiting for drivers is just not an option when I know there is an OS that works just fine and has tonnes of drivers.
 
Wrench00 said:
There is no need for me to use vista. Why on god green earth would I keep an OS installed when I have to disable half of it. You guys think that I didn't try to trouble shoot these errors I spent way to much time on these errors. Xp64 works just fine no problems. Waiting for drivers is just not an option when I know there is an OS that works just fine and has tonnes of drivers.
Click to expand...

What is so funny, is there are still some "experts" stuck at Windows 98 because they said the same thing when XP came out (and now Vista).

I really don't know why on earth you would want to stick with decade-old technology and incompatibility like that (Vista is more compatible than people give it credit for. I haven't had to install a single driver for the several machines I've put it on, aside from printer drivers. The CDROM drivers, and all the other things XP generally had troubles with work right out of the box with Vista)

Too similar is XP-Vista to 98-XP. You'll be the guy using outdated technology, unable to use the latest programs because you don't want to take a leap (IMO that's what keeps most people back. It isn't hardware, software, or anything else. It's either anti-Microsoft, laziness, etc).
 
versello said:
I've had the same experience with Vista Business... it was enough to make me convert to OS X.
Click to expand...

I made the decision that I was buying a new mac this year when at a vista launch event the microsoft rep was asking me questions about the OS to tell his customers.

I'm so done with windows.
 
zacdl said:
What is so funny, is there are still some "experts" stuck at Windows 98 because they said the same thing when XP came out (and now Vista).

I really don't know why on earth you would want to stick with decade-old technology and incompatibility like that (Vista is more compatible than people give it credit for. I haven't had to install a single driver for the several machines I've put it on, aside from printer drivers. The CDROM drivers, and all the other things XP generally had troubles with work right out of the box with Vista)

Too similar is XP-Vista to 98-XP. You'll be the guy using outdated technology, unable to use the latest programs because you don't want to take a leap (IMO that's what keeps most people back. It isn't hardware, software, or anything else. It's either anti-Microsoft, laziness, etc).
Click to expand...

Why stick with XP well maybe because it works.

Why stick to Xp? Because there is no compeling software or hardware package that makes Vista worth it..

I did take the plunge I bought the OS 300 dollars of it and I got burned. Until everyone catches up with the Vista I am not going to bother wasting my precious time which I have little of anyway. I use to work IT and frankly I don't want to return there because of diminishing returns.

I could trouble shoot some more lets say another 20 hours which is roughly 10 or more day on a computer for me OR I can play my games, watch my shows, listen to my music and relax and not pull my hair out cause my machine is BSODing on me for no good reason. Plus I don't want loose any more data.

So far I had at least 20 BSOD since I installed vista for the time I was running xp64 I may have had like 2 BSODs.
 
"The CDROM drivers"


That would be a first for me as I have never had to install a cdrom driver on XP, net even on Win98 did I have to do that. Sounds like FUD to me. ;)
 
I'd say FUD would be the correct term.

Suggesting that it is possible to have trouble with CD-ROM drivers, when in fact that is highly unlikely could cause someone to fear, or doubt their decision to install that particular OS.

I think it is funny however that it was actually used in a sense that I'm sure he didnt intend.
 
"What is so funny, is there are still some "experts" stuck at Windows 98 because they said the same thing when XP came out (and now Vista)."

Really? Name one. I mean seriously. Name one.

"I really don't know why on earth you would want to stick with decade-old technology and incompatibility like that (Vista is more compatible than people give it credit for. I haven't had to install a single driver for the several machines I've put it on, aside from printer drivers. The CDROM drivers, and all the other things XP generally had troubles with work right out of the box with Vista)"

Because there is no true reason to justify the expenditure other than pretty. Yes, applications are pre-cached, but was done to make vista faster or was that done to speed up an inherently slow os? Luna was added into XP at the end to make the OS seem like it was at all different from 2k.

"Too similar is XP-Vista to 98-XP. You'll be the guy using outdated technology, unable to use the latest programs because you don't want to take a leap

Sorry, simply an invalid comparison. Are you talking about 98 or 98se? Did you even know there was a difference? You're also comparing an OS that was based on the Windows 95/98 based code vs that of the 2000/NT based code. It's an invalid comparison. Most people who had a clue way back in the 98se days, were running Windows 2000, not 98 or the 98se that you didn't know about. The upgrade to XP provided little improvement to them as their OS would run everything they wanted and most of the 'improvements' in XP were either already available as updates to the OS or commonly used free commercial software. The only real XP upgrade benefits were pretty fonts and a faster boot time. Of course MS has made the latter worse with Vista.

What you seem to not know is that even with Vista, there is little real advantage over 2k. As the OP noted, his older OS does everything he needs it to already. He could even go back to 2000 and it would still do everything he wanted it to do.

"(IMO that's what keeps most people back. It isn't hardware, software, or anything else. It's either anti-Microsoft, laziness, etc)."

Sorry, your opinion here is just wrong. You don't seem to have a handle about upgrade paths in terms of MS desktop software. You might want to do some more research before you weigh in here. I think the OP would be a tad insulted here since you're implying that he's either anti-Microsoft (odd since he just paid them $300 for the top version of their new OS) or lazy (odd since he just said all of the things he did to troubleshoot this) or both. Perhaps before you make such strong statements, you'd be better off knowing more of what you talk about.
Reply With Quote
 
general said:
Most people who had a clue way back in the 98se days, were running Windows 2000, not 98 or the 98se that you didn't know about. The upgrade to XP provided little improvement to them as their OS would run everything they wanted and most of the 'improvements' in XP were either already available as updates to the OS or commonly used free commercial software. The only real XP upgrade benefits were pretty fonts and a faster boot time. Of course MS has made the latter worse with Vista.
Click to expand...
If I remember, Win2k didn't have very good game support at first. This was the MAIN reason I never upgraded to it.
 
general said:
"What is so funny, is there are still some "experts" stuck at Windows 98 because they said the same thing when XP came out (and now Vista)."

Really? Name one. I mean seriously. Name one.

"I really don't know why on earth you would want to stick with decade-old technology and incompatibility like that (Vista is more compatible than people give it credit for. I haven't had to install a single driver for the several machines I've put it on, aside from printer drivers. The CDROM drivers, and all the other things XP generally had troubles with work right out of the box with Vista)"

Because there is no true reason to justify the expenditure other than pretty. Yes, applications are pre-cached, but was done to make vista faster or was that done to speed up an inherently slow os? Luna was added into XP at the end to make the OS seem like it was at all different from 2k.

"Too similar is XP-Vista to 98-XP. You'll be the guy using outdated technology, unable to use the latest programs because you don't want to take a leap

Sorry, simply an invalid comparison. Are you talking about 98 or 98se? Did you even know there was a difference? You're also comparing an OS that was based on the Windows 95/98 based code vs that of the 2000/NT based code. It's an invalid comparison. Most people who had a clue way back in the 98se days, were running Windows 2000, not 98 or the 98se that you didn't know about. The upgrade to XP provided little improvement to them as their OS would run everything they wanted and most of the 'improvements' in XP were either already available as updates to the OS or commonly used free commercial software. The only real XP upgrade benefits were pretty fonts and a faster boot time. Of course MS has made the latter worse with Vista.

What you seem to not know is that even with Vista, there is little real advantage over 2k. As the OP noted, his older OS does everything he needs it to already. He could even go back to 2000 and it would still do everything he wanted it to do.

"(IMO that's what keeps most people back. It isn't hardware, software, or anything else. It's either anti-Microsoft, laziness, etc)."

Sorry, your opinion here is just wrong. You don't seem to have a handle about upgrade paths in terms of MS desktop software. You might want to do some more research before you weigh in here. I think the OP would be a tad insulted here since you're implying that he's either anti-Microsoft (odd since he just paid them $300 for the top version of their new OS) or lazy (odd since he just said all of the things he did to troubleshoot this) or both. Perhaps before you make such strong statements, you'd be better off knowing more of what you talk about.
Reply With Quote
Click to expand...

At least some one read my whole post.
 
calebb said:
First, Odoe asked us to not pull the FUD card as frequently - at least have some dialog with the other person first.

Second, I don't think you know what FUD is. FUD != incorrect statement.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what it means. He tried to create fear, uncertainty and doubt about XP by saying you have to install drivers for cdrom drives in XP which is not true at all. No manufacturer provides drivers for cdrom drives because the OS already has them. It was disinformation.

"The term originated to describe disinformation tactics"
 
Not to mention that the bulk of CD/DVD drive problems experienced by people migrating to XP were "my drive is missing" problems related to incompatible burning and virtual drive apps. Same problem exists for the Vista migration (for many people) and the same 'UpperFilter/LowerFilter' registry tweak corrects it ;)
 
I had zero problems with Vista Ultimate... I was so used to it, I actually didn't like the switch back to XP... I want Vista again... haha...

And I got my copy for $45... I have a microsoft alumni in my family :p Microsoft Employee Store Access ftw.
 
zacdl said:
Vista is more compatible than people give it credit for. I haven't had to install a single driver for the several machines I've put it on, aside from printer drivers. The CDROM drivers, and all the other things XP generally had troubles with work right out of the box with Vista
Click to expand...

soo... what you are really saying is that you had to install drivers with Vista
So why the effing-hell did you start off by saying that you hadn't had to install as single Driver !!!!!

I here a TLA comming on...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top