Software, Computers, Video Games and D&D UtilitiesGeneral discussion on computer software and hardware, PC and console games, and RPG utilities such as eTools, PC GEN, etc.
I am planning on getting a laptop soon, it took a few weeks to decide on the model. I am an XP user and I heard a lot of negative things about Vista. My cousin who used to work for MS, tells me it's not that bad.
Bottom line, would waiting 11 months now for Windows 7 be a worth it? Are the problems with Vista really that bad?
I use the PC for song writing using some low processor intensive programs. I do not really play computer video games. I rarely render video, graphics or anything else that may be a system hog. Now it's mostly about e-mail, web browsing, video chats and leisure (and school again.)
I'm planning on getting a HP G60T which has all the specs (after customization) I am looking for in a machine. I gave up on my ideas of getting a touch screen PC.
__________________
"In D&D there are no limits ..... you can open that door that doesn't open in WOW."
-Bill Slavicsek
Last edited by dema; 10th January 2009 at 07:59 PM..
Reason: Hp Model is G60T
I run Vista on my desktop and XP on my (four-year-old) tablet. I tried Vista on my tablet when Vista came out and found it to be much better with a few things like handwriting recognition, but it's a bit of a resource hog and seems to drain the battery much faster than XP (4.5 hrs vs 2 hrs). The former shouldn't be an issue for a new machine, and I've been told SP1 fixed the power consumption -- which is exactly what happened with XP.
Overall, I've been pretty happy with Vista, and I don't think you have any reason to be afraid of it. All the negative hype is just smoke being blown. If I were getting a new machine, I wouldn't think twice about getting Vista.
I'm glad you asked, though. Word is that Win7 is much more streamlined and runs fine on a Pentium 4. You reminded me to go download the Beta and put it on my tablet to test it out.
Vista, pre SP1, was almost as bad as you heard. (And that's pretty bad).
Vista, post SP1, is a pretty rockin' OS and I'm very happy with it. Indeed, I would go so far as to say I have become a genuine FAN of Vista 32 Home Premium.
I have Vista 32 Home Premium installed on all my desktops and laptops now. (5x desktops, 2x laptops).
Yes, I bought a unique copy for every one of those machines (admittedly, an OEM system builder version for my desktops, but...whatever). Microsoft's automatic Windows Updater and the confidence and peace of mind that service provides to me has finally won the battle for them. (Bill and Steve? I surrender - you win; here's my money for seven copies).
Mind you, I have some pretty serious hardware and I am not trying to run Vista on XP era hardware.
If you are getting a new laptop? Get 4 gig o ram on it (well - THREE at least, and the 4th depending on your video RAM pool) and get Vista 32.
If you are a game player - I would not bother with Vista 64. It's not worth the hassle, especially when it comes to drivers.
Vista Ultimate - any flavor - is pretty much a waste of money unless Remote Access features are critical for you (or unless you need it for some other specific reason that may also be a good one on top of RA that I'm not aware of).
If history is any guide in these matters, Windows 7 will improve on some perceived deficiencies with Vista - and add a whole host of bugs and a few other NEW pet peeves which will render it unsatisfactory until SP1 of Windows 7 is ultimately released. That's a pretty standard pattern for Microsoft's OS's stretching back to Windows 3 >> WFWG 3.11 Win 95, Win 98, Win 2000, WinXP, Vista, .... Hell, it applies in the DOS era too, though the line in the sand with DOS was never as bright a line.
Anyways - no, don't wait for Win 7 for a machine you are buying now.
__________________ .Robert
roXidy Games Inc.
Last edited by Steel_Wind; 10th January 2009 at 08:36 PM..
I think it is safe to go ahead and buy a Vista machine. Everything I'm reading about Windows 7 is that it is a minor upgrade of Vista. It will continue the Vista driver model and a lot of the interface. Might as well start learning the new interface now. Pundits are already calling W7 Fixta. It is really more of a service pack than a whole new version. Microsoft only seems to be going to 7 because Vista has such a bad rap. It has some problems and they seem to me at least to have changed some things for no good reason. The changes in user interface in the latest version of Office really have as much to do with dislike of Vista than anything else. That and legacy support. If you are running a whole new machine and not planning to use a lot of old hardware with it, you should find Vista better than the rumors.
I am planning on getting a laptop soon, it took a few weeks to decide on the model. I am an XP user and I heard a lot of negative things about Vista. My cousin who used to work for MS, tells me it's not that bad.
Bottom line, would waiting 11 months now for Windows 7 be a worth it? Are the problems with Vista really that bad?
I have my Vista PC since last year's summer now and had very, very few problems, really. It mostly runs very smooth and I like it better than XP.
It does use more system resources, however, so it's not suitable for a fairly low-powered machine (like those netbooks; eee-pc and the likes).
Quote:
I use the PC for song writing using some low processor intensive programs. I do not really play computer video games. I rarely render video, graphics or anything else that may be a system hog. Now it's mostly about e-mail, web browsing, video chats and leisure (and school again.)
That should be absolutely no problem with Vista.
Bye
Thanee
__________________
In our world, immortality is not for the living. The legend lives on!
In Memoriam Dave Arneson ( April 7th, 2009) & Gary Gygax ( March 4th, 2008).
Wondering what the Dungeon Tiles are like? Take a look here (up to DU5 Sinister Woods).
Make sure your song writing programs actually work with Vista. Some niche programs are still way behind the times.
Other than that, I'd agree with the other folks. Vista SP1 is pretty solid and pretty reasonable, if a bit piggy. I have every hope that Win7 will be better, and it looks like there is an upgrade path between Vista and Win7 to make future upgrades easier.
__________________ Your sig should never be longer than your post.
Dema, I'm a tech in an IT department. I can tell you that it's not very good compared to the version of XP it replaced, but it's not so terrible that I would refuse to buy a new computer just because it had Vista on it, and more to the point it's simply not worth waiting a year in expectation of a new OS that will likely have its share of initial bugs.
With RAM, hard drives, and very powerful CPUs insanely cheap and the Vista driver situation and early bugs mostly worked out at this point, there's no reason not to go 64-bit Vista on a new home machine unless you've got something that absolutely doesn't work if you do.
Win7 is looking like it's a small step removed from being Vista Service Pack 2 (the server version is Windows Server 2008 R2, not Windows Server 2010); it'll get a better reception mostly because 90% of the hardware that didn't have Vista drivers in Jan 2007 does now (and Vista drivers work for Win 7), and 90% of the rest is old enough that it's worn out.
With RAM, hard drives, and very powerful CPUs insanely cheap and the Vista driver situation and early bugs mostly worked out at this point, there's no reason not to go 64-bit Vista on a new home machine unless you've got something that absolutely doesn't work if you do.
The OP said he was not much of a game player. Others reading this may well be.
If they are, stay away from Vista 64. Ths issue is QA on the game itself (most shops will not test extensively on Vista 64 (and some not at all)) and drivers.
What frequently happens on a game's release is some driver issue that requires an update or patch somewhere to deal with the problem. If it's the game itself? Fine. But if it's the driver that needs revision - this will lead to trouble.
New 32bit drivers can be released fairly quickly. 64? Not so. That is because you cannot use an unsigned driver under Vista 64. There is a whole layer of testing and bureacracy that is added on to a 64 bit driver that will result in a significant delay befroe it is approved for release. This means that new driver versions are released more slowly for 64 than 32 - and not by just a little.
If you buy and play new PC games, the downside of the driver delay hangtime that is inherent to Vista 64 may well result in grief you do not need. I would strongly recommend against it. There are no 64 bit specific triple A PC titles, and there are not going to BE any 64 bit specific Triple A PC titles for many years to come.
The minuses easily outweight the plusses, imo. If you are going to use your PC to play PC games, stay away from Vista 64.
New 32bit drivers can be released fairly quickly. 64? Not so. That is because you cannot use an unsigned driver under Vista 64. There is a whole layer of testing and bureaucracy that is added on to a 64 bit driver that will result in a significant delay before it is approved for release. This means that new driver versions are released more slowly for 64 than 32 - and not by just a little.
Since using unsigned drivers is a very, very bad idea, this doesn't persuade me at all.
Moreover, Vista x64 will take advantage of huge amounts of memory if you've got it (for caching if nothing else), and it's too cheap not to get 4GB+ for a desktop (unless you're getting an i7 with DDR3 -- and even though it's twice as expensive as DDR2, DDR3 is still cheaper per GB than DDR2 was a few years ago), in which you've got plenty of money, and so are going to get at least 6GB). Vista x64 is the current enthusiast platform of choice; the idea that games won't get tested extensively there is bizarre.
32-bit Win7 will almost certainly be relegated to the third world, huge corporations, and netbooks. And it will be the last 32-bit desktop Windows. It's a 64-bit world now.
I like Vista except for a couple of issues. Lots of hardware just doesn't work well with it. My printer needs to be rebooted after a paper jam. My monitor stopped working after a nVidia driver update. At this point though, most hardware is going to have Vista as a primary platform, so it shouldn't be as much of an issue.
Lots of people don't like UAC (the security prompts). They're wrong. UAC is necessary, although it's perhaps not implemented as securely as it should have been. XP boxes turn to malware-covered slag after too much web browsing. Vista boxes are much more resistant.
Vista does include some REALLY nice features. Network mapping is sweet (sure, you could add that to XP too, but it's slightly more work to do).
Hold out for 7. Vista was a disastrous mistake on Microsoft's behalf. Hopefully the replacement will be significantly superior in every way, and Vista will be left behind - but not forgotten - sooner rather than later.
Vista 64 is particularly toxic, as I've discovered time and time again, when fixing other people's computer problems in recent times.
While I agree, that this is where things are heading, it's still a veeeery long way until you can say that.
To this day, there is practically no software for 64-bit available. The only actual advantage is the > 4 GB of address space. That hardly outweighs the potential driver issues. Not yet.
Bye
Thanee
__________________
In our world, immortality is not for the living. The legend lives on!
In Memoriam Dave Arneson ( April 7th, 2009) & Gary Gygax ( March 4th, 2008).
Wondering what the Dungeon Tiles are like? Take a look here (up to DU5 Sinister Woods).
Hold out for 7. Vista was a disastrous mistake on Microsoft's behalf. Hopefully the replacement will be significantly superior in every way, and Vista will be left behind - but not forgotten - sooner rather than later.
Windows 7 is Vista SP2 + some cosmetic UI changes and some minor tweaks in how UAC works. It's going to get a much better reception because hardware manufacturers have had 3 years to write Vista drivers, and stuff that doesn't have Vista drivers is 3 years older now and some more likely to have been replaced.
While I agree, that this is where things are heading, it's still a veeeery long way until you can say that.
It's almost impossible to get a non-netbook with a 32-bit CPU, and has been since early 2007 (in 2006, Pentium M/Core 1 desktops were still common enough to be worth mentioning). 64-bit is the default on servers and high-end desktops. Microsoft requires that 64-bit drivers exist to get WHQL certified.
Going with 32-bit Windows now is like going with Win ME instead of Win2K Pro in 2000 was (and I didn't do that, either). It's extremely short-sighted, and will come back to bite you.
I currently have both the 32-bit and 64-bit Vista versions on my computer. I'm a gamer, and it basically just in case I get a game that hates 64-bit, or if something should crash repeatedly on one of the versions. However, i haven't had much trouble at all yet. Some things with WoW, but I think it's the game and not Vista. I'm kinda excited about Win7. Hopefully it will be a combination of 64 and 32 bit, so the compatibility issue will dissolve for most of the newer stuff.
Basically, run the Vista checker on your software, make sure it'll work, if so, go Vista. I love the interface, just make sure and turn off the stupid UAC thing...man that's annoying. lol
It's almost impossible to get a non-netbook with a 32-bit CPU, and has been since early 2007 (in 2006, Pentium M/Core 1 desktops were still common enough to be worth mentioning). 64-bit is the default on servers and high-end desktops.
Only because of the RAM, though.
Quote:
Going with 32-bit Windows now is like going with Win ME instead of Win2K Pro in 2000 was (and I didn't do that, either). It's extremely short-sighted, and will come back to bite you.
You can always upgrade to a 64-bit OS, once it is actually required. It's not like that's a big problem.
Right now, I don't see the advantage (unless you NEED more than 4 GB RAM, which 99.9% of PC users do not) as compared to the potential trouble with incompatibilities, since virtually all software is still 32-bit.
In a year or two... probably. But today? Not yet.
Bye
Thanee
__________________
In our world, immortality is not for the living. The legend lives on!
In Memoriam Dave Arneson ( April 7th, 2009) & Gary Gygax ( March 4th, 2008).
Wondering what the Dungeon Tiles are like? Take a look here (up to DU5 Sinister Woods).
With RAM, hard drives, and very powerful CPUs insanely cheap and the Vista driver situation and early bugs mostly worked out at this point, there's no reason not to go 64-bit Vista on a new home machine unless you've got something that absolutely doesn't work if you do.
Well, the reason would be that people have differing opinion's on what's "insanely cheap". You can get a decent PC for about $1000 and a rockin' one for maybe $2000. That's been the norm for the last decade. Laying out an extra grand for a powerhouse machine just to have adequate resources to run Vista (64 or otherwise) just to play the occasional game will probably lead to buyer's remorse at some point.
Graphic cards remain a consistently expensive component, unfortunately.
Last edited by Felon; 14th January 2009 at 02:12 PM..
Well, the reason would be that people have differing opinion's on what's "insanely cheap". You can get a decent PC for about $1000 and a rockin' one for maybe $2000.
You can get a decent PC for $500 and one with anything short of an i7 and a bleeding edge GPU for $1000. I mean, I'm not making this stuff up; I picked up a $550 Dell desktop last month because my laptop has been flaky -- 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo, 4 GB of RAM, ~300GB HD, a low-end discrete graphics card (I pretty much only game on my 360), and Vista Home Premium x64.
I mean, seriously, even if you're getting RAM from crucial.com, not some random bargain outlet, 2GB DDR2-800 DIMMs are less than $25. There's no reason not to get 4GB at those prices. 750GB hard drives are less than $100.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felon
Graphic cards remain a consistently expensive component, unfortunately.
I suppose you live in some bizarro universe where Radeon 4850s and GeForce GTX 260s (a very small step down from ATi and nVidia's best single-GPU cards) aren't well under $200? Graphics card prices completely collapsed when the Radeon 4xxx line came out last year. Heck, a 4670 is more than adequate for all but the most demanding games at high resolutions -- and you can get one for $70 from NewEgg.
I suppose you live in some bizarro universe where Radeon 4850s and GeForce GTX 260s (a very small step down from ATi and nVidia's best single-GPU cards) aren't well under $200?
While I agree that Felon is greatly overexaggerating prices, the GTX 260s aren't under $200. You'll be spending ~$250 for one. But as you say, building a great gaming PC in no way costs over $1000. Even if you demanded an i7 -- which has no real mainstream version yet -- to have a current upgrade path, it would at most add another $300 between extra CPU, RAM and motherboard costs.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
