To Vista or to not Vista, that is the question.

[Rykoro]

I recently got a copy of vista for free and I was wondering what you guys think about installing it or not.

I really never followed the whole vista thing, honestly I just ignored it all I know is vista has DX10 and I was considering picking up a 8600GTS...what else is new about vista that would make someone want it?  Is there any reason not to install it?

Should I install vista or stick with XP and let vista collect dust on my desk?

Thanks, Ry

[Reflex]

I enjoy it, but I do reccomend plenty of RAM.  As far as I am concerned, 1GB is minimum.  2GB is great.  Really it just depends on when you want to have your learning curve, now or later.  At some point games will move to DX10 and you won't have a choice.

[Babar]

I have Vista sitting on my desk at home. I plan to install it, but am first waiting for Microsoft to come out with a couple more compatibility fixes as I know Vista won't run with a couple of games that I have.

[Nighteye]

Install it as dual-boot, then play around with it.

[Intuit]

I'll put up a simple step-by-step guide to dual-booting with Vista on the same partition or multiple partitions later.

For now to recover space on my 100GB craptop I've just moved ALL my nephew's games to an external harddrive, then did a search and replace on the registry and filesystem to change any paths... thus avoiding any need for reinstallations, (hurt feelings,) lost settings and data.  With such crappy performance I can (probably?) forget about 64-bit though and sure as hell not putting money into additional RAM.  A replacement yes, (and if a lawyer can get them to pay for it...) but not additional RAM.

Still in the process of clearing space and archiving some old data on my desktop.  That'll be dual-booted with Vista, split between three harddrives, as well.

[rubyrod]

"not to Vista"
Put the vote up like we do with most of these propositions.  We waited years (decades?) for something as stable/instable as XP.  Once you've got it FINALLY working right (to an extent), you want to change because they've flashed a shiny bobble in your face?  I say, give a year or two (the way we did w/ XP) and change when it's "broken in".  Then when we've saved enough for the exorbitant expenditure that is Vista, we can all be ready.

[Reflex]

ruby - You do know that Vista costs the same as XP, right?  Just checking...

[rubyrod]

We HAVE XP, right? I'm not talking about a "new" purchase.  (Who on this board doesn't OWN a Windows OS?). Although, that's what it comes down to.  You paid for XP...  Premium prices when it came out and it "is" finally "working" for you (5 years on).  Given the choice on a new purchase, of course, I pick the "new"; but with history as our guide shouldn't we be a bit skeptical of this new candy, don't you think? hundreds of dollars/euro/pound at stake?  Of course, DIFFERING "pricepoints" for every region depending on possible profit.

Granted, you worked for our "new lords" for a time but even you must admit that it took years to get XP within the realm of advisably usable: security and consistency-wise?  I'm no "anti-Windows, linux for alles" fan-boy!  You know this; I've asked for help from you on this OS.  My problem is that we are still working this OS out to get "what we paid for" and they put out something new and collude with the hardware manus for MORE profit for everyone (except us).  That first of all, doesn't appear much better (except visually) than what was there before and never addresses the original issues for committed users.  Not the insecurity (expected for to some extent given the purveyor ((not SO much but...)), actually it is the compatibility and functionality of the OS.  All I seem to hear are issues related to hardware incompatibility and currently usable but future unusable software...  Blame it on all the software makers if you like ( for "knowing" all this time what Vista "needs") but I expect my mega corps to have anticipated that unwillingness to some extent and "pre-fixed" it.  Especially for the premium pricing.  XP is "finally" working...  What an opportune time to extract some money from the user (world?) for what works out to be an "all day screen saver" in terms of functionality.

PS- Thought about it: Please excuse Shagbag from this conver.

[OldDummy]

I'm running Vista Ultimate 64 and like it quite a bit. In regards to hardware....ram: I think 3G is about right. I'm running 4G and that might be a little overkill but not off the wall. In gereral: This OS loves hardware the higher end the better. I'm running a X6800 @ 3.3G and don't feel the OS is overmatched at all. If a faster quad comes out I think I will consider that. Don't get me wrong 2G and a lesser CPU would run this OS and it would be smooth..but it wouldn't be fast. Don't try to low end this OS on the hardware.
All things considered I would recommend Vista to anyone who has the hardware to run it.
OD

[Reflex]

rubyrod - Well, I moved my clients to XP literally as soon as possible.  It was such a huge leap up from Win9x that I strongly felt, and still do today, that even a pre-SP1 version of XP is far superior to anyone running Win9x.  Your point does have some merit in regards to Vista however.  While Vista is a large leap when compared to NT4->Win2k, and Win2k->WinXP, its not nearly the leap that Win9x->WinXP is, so there really isn't a rush until at least the first service pack IMO.  Still, were I building a new system for a client, I'd rather start them on Vista now then have to upgrade them in a year or two.

[Rykoro]

Guess I'll hold off until I need to upgrade it...I'm considering dropping my PC for gaming all together and just playing Xbox 360.

[Reflex]

Sadly thats pretty much the point I'm at.  Unless you like MMO's, FPS, RTS or hack and slash RPG's there just is very very little anymore on the PC.  I'm kinda hoping that Sins of a Solar Empire shows promise, if they could give you an option to make it fully turn based I'd be excited, but right now I'm on the fence.  I'd give about anything for a turn based sequel to Master of Magic, or a true remake of Master of Orion(MOO3 was terrible).

[poptones]

Who on this board doesn’t OWN a Windows OS?

Well, I have a windows 2000 CD around here... somewhere...

[Reflex]

Due to my work as a system builder I own so many Windows licenses its not even funny.  I've been known to donate them to charity when I know they are needed.

[Shagbag]

For the record - and just to clarify rubyrod's comment - I DO own a windows OS but (a) never used it, and (b) haven't missed it.

To be fair, I think the question needs to be reframed to acknowledge the fact that it is exceedingly difficult NOT to own a windows OS - unless you are prepared to pay through the nose for Apple hardware.  There's a reason M$ has a monopoly on the desktop - you can't buy a PC without it.

Believe it or not, I've actually warmed to Vista in the past two weeks.  It's got nothing to do with the software and all to do with the hardware.  I'm in the process of buying another PC and I am amazed at the movement in the quality-price ratio of 'old' hardware available on ebay and other auction sites since Vista came out.  Thanks to Vista, we've never had it so good!!!

[rubyrod]

I've been known to donate them to charity when I know they are needed.

Lonely American stuck in a foreign land needs extra XP Pro license.  

[Doomzilla]

Just re-installed Vista last night.  I really don't mind using it at all.  If I hadn't gotten it for free XP would probably still be installed, but I'm glad I have DX10 for when I "need" it.  Vista runs great and there is no reason why I should go back to XP.

I've owned more consoles than most people and I always end up selling them and going back to the PC.  So far my favorite has been the XBox, so there's a good chance I'll eventually buy an Xbox360.

[Intuit]

Sadly thats pretty much the point I'm at.  Unless you like MMO's, FPS, RTS or hack and slash RPG's there just is very very little anymore on the PC.  I'm kinda hoping that Sins of a Solar Empire shows promise, if they could give you an option to make it fully turn based I'd be excited, but right now I'm on the fence.  I'd give about anything for a turn based sequel to Master of Magic, or a true remake of Master of Orion(MOO3 was terrible).

That's kind of what I thought years ago too... then I spent a little time with my Nephews on their consoles and realized... I just wasn't into gaming, period... anymore.  I purchased HL2 and haven't touched it in over a month... D3 I never even got around to finishing.  I just buy the occassional game for the eye-candy.  

[Crabby Guy]

After having converted two machines to run on Vista for several months, here are my thoughts.

Pro:

- It's more sophisticated and self-healing than XP.

- The OS itself feels more stable.

- It works well and smoothly with Office 2007.

- It's pretty.

- We will eventually be forced to go to it, so why not adopt it now?

Con:

- Many applications don't run on it yet.

- Some that say they do run on it aren't stable or have so many bugs they are not useable.

- Some applications that run fine together on XP clash badly on Vista.

- Device drivers are not ready for some existing hardware and some manufacturers--HP notably--say they won't offer drivers for many devices that were discontinued shortly before Vista hit the stores.  In other words, plan to replace some peripheral hardware.

- It requires more memory to run.  With a memory-hungry program or two, you can hit the 4GB addressable limit of 32-bit Vista.  Running 64-bit Vista brings a whole additional set of teething problems.

- It's slower than XP (1) to boot, maybe 50%, and (2) to run, say 10-15%.  Restoring from hibernation takes longer with more RAM and Vista will usually require more RAM than XP.

- If you want certain combinations of features, Vista will cost you twice what XP does, as you'll need Ultimate to get them.

- UAC will drive you crazy if left on and a few applications require it be turned off.  With UAC off, at least one security feature (on the Internet) will be turned off by Vista.

- It fragments your system partition so much and so fast you can't believe it.

- At this point, it's the OS of the future...and will be so for quite a while.

[Reflex]

I agree with most of that, but I do have two issues -

- Hibernation is not something I have tried, but having worked on the spec the OS is irrelevant in hibernation(S4) performance.  The reason is that it is bound by how much memory you have in total, not how much is in use.  Basically its speed is limited to how fast an image of your memory can be written to the hard disk.  There IS a possibility however that the IDE/SATA drivers are not up to snuff performance wise on Vista however, which may account for your performance issue...

- I don't see the fragmentation you refer to at all.  Being NTFS, it dosen't truly 'fragment' in the way your used to thinking of.  I'm not sure what problem your seeing, but its not really fragmentation, and its not something I have seen on my Vista system at all...

[Crabby Guy]

What I said was

Restoring from hibernation takes longer with more RAM and Vista will usually require more RAM than XP.

 If you can refute that, please go ahead.

I am aware that you believe that NTFS does not truly fragment.  I put your view in the minority.  See, for example, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/174619 .  Recent Windows programs work hard to keep the MFT from becoming fragmented because defrag programs cannot fix such a problem in the MFT.

If you have an MS knowledge base article that states that NTFS drives don't become defragmented outside of the MFT, please give me the reference.

[Doomzilla]

What is hibernation good for?  I've never used it.

[Crabby Guy]

Hibernation copies what is in your RAM to your HDD and then powers down the machine.  If there is a power failure and you either have no UPS or it doesn't work correctly, you don't loose what you're working on.  Also, power consumption is virtually zero in hibernation.

Vista also has "hybrid sleep" that starts in the common suspect to RAM state and after a while goes to hibernation.  MS believes this is the most effective way to shut down a machine.  Cynics believe this mode was invented when Vista's stated goal of quicker booting then XP was badly missed.  Hybrid sleep does not work on my SN95G5V3s, at least with the latest, i.e., 15-month-old, BIOS from Shuttle.

It takes a machine with more RAM longer to go into hibernation as well as "wake up" from it.  However, I don't consider shut-down speed important as I don't hang around to watch.

[Reflex]

What I said was

Restoring from hibernation takes longer with more RAM and Vista will usually require more RAM than XP.

 If you can refute that, please go ahead.

My point was that on two equally configured PC's, hibernation will not be any slower on Vista than XP.  If you change the configuration on Vista to add more memory, then yes, of course it will take longer for the reasons I stated.  While I certainly do appreciate that Vista has a higher minimum memory requirement, at the same time I wouldn't build a system with less than 1GB of memory for XP or Vista anymore, and 1GB is plenty for both.  YMMV of course.

I am aware that you believe that NTFS does not truly fragment.  I put your view in the minority.  See, for example, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/174619 .  Recent Windows programs work hard to keep the MFT from becoming fragmented because defrag programs cannot fix such a problem in the MFT.

If you have an MS knowledge base article that states that NTFS drives don't become defragmented outside of the MFT, please give me the reference.

Go read the article you just linked to.  It backs up exactly what I stated in the past.  Defragmentation on NTFS is optimization of the table, not movement of the files.  That is what I have tried to explain to you in previous posts on this topic.  Remember your talking to someone who worked on NTFS as part of his job for Microsoft, I DO know how it works.

[Fontaine]

Am on dual boot.
Love how vista looks, got a problem with 1 or 2 games though. Overall its nicer then xp.

Currently I am back on Vista again. Just pick basic or premium version.
Why do ppl pick/buy the ultimate version I wonder?