Just got Vista at work????

[jammies]

Feed it more memory. It won't be happy until you have at least 2 gigs, and even then it'll be teenager-why-must-I-put-up-with-the-world happy and not normal happy.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Did they upgrade your hardware while they were at it? I do have 2GB currently at home an it seems to be working fine (compared to when I usually have 4GB in it, 2 sticks corrupted on me).

I find the single largest issue in any work computer to be how your IT group has it configured and whatever spyware / background utilities they have running that can really clog things up. For example I've heard indexing can really cause the HD to be thrashing about all the time but at home on my quad core machine it's never really been an issue. We use to have ePolicy clients in the background that would chew up crazy resources. Even now as I check the system processes, there's a lot I don't recognize...

Hmmm... maybe I shouldn't be on CP so much....

[Bobblehead]

I've been running Vista for over a year and have no issues with it.

Depending upon your computer, it may be a hog. The thing they put in Vista to try and make it look "pretty" is called Aero, and that needs a fair bit of memory (2 GB or more) and a pretty good CPU. If your computer is a bit older, you should be able to turn off Aero and it shouldn't be too bad (well, unless you have a really old and/or slow computer).

BTW, Vist always looks like it uses a lot of memory. This is by design. In XP and older, the operating system would try to free up memory by moving programs that weren't being used to the hard drive page file. Vista did this different, as it tries to load up as much as it can into memory, and only page things when it needs to free memory. So In Vista it always looks liek a resource hog, even if it isn't.

[dobbles]

fotze, does it break it down into the various sub ratings? when we put vista on our machines at work back when it came out in nov. 06, many of our laptops had sufficient ratings for processor and RAM, but had onboard video cards that were crap. and i believe the overall rating can only go as high as the lowest sub rating. but i went back to XP after a couple months, so i can't be sure.

[Locke]

Kill it with fire?

[Rathji]

See where your Experience Index is being held back, that may give you a hint at what is wrong. with 2.5 gigs of RAM I am pretty suprised to see only a 2.0. And don't fret about it being out of 10, I run Vista like a dream with 3.5 and the most I have seen is 6.5 on a tricked out Dell XPS moster laptop.

[Cliche]

Certainly he won't be having the Stephen Fry experiences (NSFW Language)

http://twitter.com/stephenfry

and for those of you who do not desire to read through his twitter for the juicy stuff:

http://gizmodo.com/5103966/the-unfla...ped-over-vista

[BlackArcher101]

I'm running it just fine here at work. Mind you, I'm using it in 64-bit, with a Q9550 cpu, and 8GB of speedy ram.

Most people think it's a memory hog, but in reality, it's using the memory a lot more efficiently than WinXP. It's mindset is that unused ram is a waste of potential speed/space, so it uses it more. Most people go wrong and start complaining about it when they upgrade the software, but neglect to upgrade the hardware, then don't understand why it's slower.

[HPLovecraft]

What do you do? Are there actual benefits in updating to Vista right now in a workplace? I don't know of any. I work at IBM, and we are using XP, and I can't imagine going to Vista.

I use Vista on my laptop, though, and I have come to despise it after its fancy effects wore off.

[Barnes]

I've been using Vista for a year and a half at work. There is nothing wrong with it, it's two years old already for cripes sake. There are major companies out there still running 2000. Keeps IT departments busy I guess.

Microsoft mishandled the launch of Vista, let the negative impressions get out of hand and needs to get back on track. They have done good things with Windows 7 and should be able to put a positive spin on it and get businesses on board even though it's really just Vista 1.5.

I'm a Mac user BTW.

[cKy]

Fotze, the rating isnt out of 10. And it takes your lowest score (generally your video card) and makes that the score. It doesnt average it out for some odd reason.

[photon]

I'm finally taking the Vista jump and I'm not liking it so far.. but I really don't have much choice as I'm exceeding the 3GB memory limit on 32 bit XP often enough to make it annoying.

Just all the little things.. Install Java 5, Firefox doesn't launch web based Java apps.. Install Java 6, same thing. Except IE works fine. Plus the way Vista does some things.. like ask ME if a program installed or uninstalled properly or not. Like I would know! You're the OS, not me, that's your job to keep track of the files and registry entries.

[BlackArcher101]

Wow, Photon is just getting into it?

I agree though, that UAC or whatever they call it... horrible. When I first install Vista I always disable any prompts they added to prevent my fist from flying into the monitor.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Wow, Photon is just getting into it?

I agree though, that UAC or whatever they call it... horrible. When I first install Vista I always disable any prompts they added to prevent my fist from flying into the monitor.

I don't get this.

MS was hammered for years about how insecure it was. So they put in a prompt when something needs administrative privileges and now people turn it off.

It is only a freakin' click, I'm not sure why people get into a snit about it. Geez, once you have your stuff installed you should rarely get prompted, and if you are prompted you really should know what is screwing with your system.

Sorry, I'm not a MS lover (I also run a linux box) but it just seems MS was damned no matter what they did.

If you want to see where MS screwed up Vista, read about the class action lawsuit. The issues started when Intel pressured Microsoft about the "Vista Capable" program, and MS relented and said things were capable when they really weren't.

[cKy]

In all fairness to the UAC, I agree certain people should have that turned on. Those people would include children, morons, and people who click "You are the 1,000,000th Visitor, Click Here!!!!" in a seizure inducing popup.

But for people who actually use computers, and know wtf they are doing, it is absolutely the most annoying feature of Vista. I left it on for my parents and their 10 year old kid on his laptop. My gf's and my machine (when i tried Vista) off after the first chance I got.

I think they did a good job of creating a dummy-AOL-like version of Windows to people who arn't technically strong.

MS gets a bad rap for anything they do, good or bad. Kinda like Nickleback.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by cKy

In all fairness to the UAC, I agree certain people should have that turned on. Those people would include children, morons, and people who click "You are the 1,000,000th Visitor, Click Here!!!!" in a seizure inducing popup.

But for people who actually use computers, and know wtf they are doing, it is absolutely the most annoying feature of Vista. I left it on for my parents and their 10 year old kid on his laptop. My gf's and my machine (when i tried Vista) off after the first chance I got.

I think they did a good job of creating a dummy-AOL-like version of Windows to people who arn't technically strong.

MS gets a bad rap for anything they do, good or bad. Kinda like Nickleback.

Why turn it off?

After you have installed your software and gotten it all set up, you will rarely get a prompt. And when I do, I want to know what the heck is accessing the windows folders/registry, etc. And if it is fine, then it is one click to allow it to continue.

If there is a piece of software that triggers the UAC a lot, it is either old and perhaps should be allowed to run as an administrator (alter the shortcut) or is a POS.

The only time I get the prompt (on a Lenovo T61 Thinkpad) is when I install new software or when the Lenovo updater is triggered.

So I would save maybe one or two clicks a week. Why bother turning off a security feature to save a couple clicks a week?

[HotHotHeat]

Dell charges $150 now to 'downgrade' to XP when you buy a new computer from them. It used to be $50.

[OBCT]

Originally Posted by cKy

In all fairness to the UAC, I agree certain people should have that turned on. Those people would include children, morons, and people who click "You are the 1,000,000th Visitor, Click Here!!!!" in a seizure inducing popup.

But for people who actually use computers, and know wtf they are doing, it is absolutely the most annoying feature of Vista. I left it on for my parents and their 10 year old kid on his laptop. My gf's and my machine (when i tried Vista) off after the first chance I got.

I think they did a good job of creating a dummy-AOL-like version of Windows to people who arn't technically strong.

MS gets a bad rap for anything they do, good or bad. Kinda like Nickleback.

That puts it into perspective nicely. Love 'em, hate 'em, or otherwise: Microsoft and Nickelback don't deserve all the press they get. Both are mediocre in many ways, but the non-stop bashing they receive is just as tiresome as the haughty "mediocrity fiends" themselves. It almost forces the 'otherwise' group to defend these bastions of successful capitalism even when they'd rather not.


Back on topic...

I've been a Windows user for quite some time. The details are some revealing. (hint: 3.1 rocks! )

Though Microsoft has almost single-handedly directed the course of the PC to this day - a commendable achievement - it hasn't always made what I would consider the best choices along the way. Not that they should care what I think!

Here's something we can all agree on: Vista is far from perfect. I've used it and find it almost exactly on par with XP in overall experience now that I've taught it how to behave and learned it's nuances. The 4 GB of RAM doesn't hurt, either. I don't mind taking the time to re-learn a new OS, but I can understand the frustration for some (XP SP2 and SP3 were pretty dang stable after all). I think Vista is moving in the right direction for the home computing crown, but in the wrong direction for businesses, offices and corporations.

Vista is like that awkward Grade 10 student that isn't great at life or love, but tries to do both at the same time all the time. Microsoft is attempting to bridge the business-end functionality of the past (life) with the all-in-one media center bells and whistles integration of the future (love) in a system that just isn't ready yet. There are flashes of brilliance, but consistency is sorely lacking.

As it stands, Vista is an okay compromise between two competing ideals. There is huge demand for both; the key will be in developing a basic platform with room for both to thrive. When it comes to an OS, every compromise should be avoided. I expect big improvements in the near future.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Why turn it off?

After you have installed your software and gotten it all set up, you will rarely get a prompt. And when I do, I want to know what the heck is accessing the windows folders/registry, etc. And if it is fine, then it is one click to allow it to continue.

If there is a piece of software that triggers the UAC a lot, it is either old and perhaps should be allowed to run as an administrator (alter the shortcut) or is a POS.

The only time I get the prompt (on a Lenovo T61 Thinkpad) is when I install new software or when the Lenovo updater is triggered.

So I would save maybe one or two clicks a week. Why bother turning off a security feature to save a couple clicks a week?

I have it off since whenever I try to play something that uses DivX it decides it needs to ask me for permission. I dont know why, and I dont really care. I know what I am doing to my computer, I dont need the OS to tell me what I am doing to it.

My grandparents on the other hand, I told them if the wanted it disabled it would mean that I would never come down to remove the virus they installed ever again. They didn't remove it, I have not had to go down.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I have it off since whenever I try to play something that uses DivX it decides it needs to ask me for permission. I dont know why, and I dont really care. I know what I am doing to my computer, I dont need the OS to tell me what I am doing to it.

My grandparents on the other hand, I told them if the wanted it disabled it would mean that I would never come down to remove the virus they installed ever again. They didn't remove it, I have not had to go down.

Interesting, I'm never prompted by any codec. That would kind of concern me. Where did you get it - from a codec pack?