Windows Vista Catch-All

The most significant improvement we noticed in SP1 over Vista (including the RC's) is that superfetch is much better. Superfetch looks at what programs you tend to use and so when you boot up, it will tend to load pieces of these into memory. Now, users who get really uptight about the amount of memory used by the system on bootup will still have a cow. But the reality is that now when you load up the programs you usually run, it's lightning fast. If you've ever right-clicked on the desktop in Windows XP to create a folder and found it obnoxious how long it takes to bring up a pop up menu, you'll like SP1.

[/quote]

What if I just burned a DVD or ran World of Warcraft for 2 hours ? Will the menu still pop up lightning fast ?

Because "mindful" pre-caching, in one variation or another, existed in XP (if not ME) as well. It's just caching. The one feature in Vista that I would've LOVED to see is the ability to hardcode some parts of the OS as unswappable. Namely, all the goddamn menues, especially the Start Menu. I want my menues to show up instantly, 'cause as far as I am concerned that was big flaw in all MS OSes up to date.

After installing SP1 I noticed very much improved removable USB storage performance.

I'm still getting unexplainable BSOD. Averaging about once every two days. This is on a laptop that came pre-installed with Vista and has stickers on it that say as much. Very frustrating.

In contrast, XP has been running pretty smooth on my other system. I'm sure Vista will get to that point, but until then, I'm still recommending people hold off if they already have XP.

DrunkenSleipnir wrote:

I'm still getting unexplainable BSOD. Averaging about once every two days. This is on a laptop that came pre-installed with Vista and has stickers on it that say as much. Very frustrating.

In contrast, XP has been running pretty smooth on my other system. I'm sure Vista will get to that point, but until then, I'm still recommending people hold off if they already have XP.

In the control panel is an applet called Problem Reports or something similar, it keeps track of 'issues' and links to KB's if there is one for an issue that has caused a problem on the PC.
It doesn't always have something but it also may (I have two right now, one regarding my nvidia drivers and another regarding steam).

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

That people have to sigh in relief after applying a service pack designed to improve a product is really a sad statement of the software industry. :)

No, just the Windows base. Nobody really gets worried about upgrading to a new version of Mac OS X, or most Linux distro updates.

I dunno, I hear a lot of Leopard upgrades didn't go that well. But yes, I take your point.

Eezy_Bordone wrote:
DrunkenSleipnir wrote:

I'm still getting unexplainable BSOD. Averaging about once every two days. This is on a laptop that came pre-installed with Vista and has stickers on it that say as much. Very frustrating.

In contrast, XP has been running pretty smooth on my other system. I'm sure Vista will get to that point, but until then, I'm still recommending people hold off if they already have XP.

In the control panel is an applet called Problem Reports or something similar, it keeps track of 'issues' and links to KB's if there is one for an issue that has caused a problem on the PC.
It doesn't always have something but it also may (I have two right now, one regarding my nvidia drivers and another regarding steam).

I didn't know that feature was there, excellent suggestion. Unfortunately, it gives no helpful information, but I'll check it in the future. Thanks for the heads up.

Yeah, Apple hasn't been doing that well lately. Every service pack has lots of horror stories. I think they must be too focused on the iPhone... the Mac is taking a back seat.

A few days back I asked about Vista's compatibility with older games. Well, there's a madman named DosFreak on the Vogons forums who has personally tested thousands of games across a host of operating systems. He has compiled the results in an enormous Excel spreadsheet, available in this thread:

http://vogons.zetafleet.com/viewtopi...

His most recent results, as of March 14 2008:

Games that work without problems in 32-bit XP: 1125
Games that work without problems in 32-bit Vista: 663

Games that don't work at all in 32-bit XP: 44
Games that don't work at all in 32-bit Vista: 127

Games that exhibit problems in 32-bit XP: 33
Games that exhibit problems in 32-bit Vista: 349

I can get Vista for under $20 from my university, but since the only reason I'm installing Windows at all is to run games, I think it'd be worth my money to spring for XP.

Engadget wrote:



That huge bundle of damning emails and documents Microsoft produced as part of the Vista-capable lawsuit is full of fascinating information about how the company developed, planned, and launched Vista, but the latest juicy nugget to come out if it suggests that a lot of problems faced by the troubled operating system are actually NVIDIA's fault -- nearly 30% of logged Vista crashes were due to NVIDIA driver problems, according to Microsoft data included in the bundle. That's some 479,326 hung systems, if you're keeping score at home, and it's in first place by a large margin -- Microsoft clocks in at number two at 17.9 percent, and ATI is fourth with 9.3 percent. Now, the chart doesn't contain a ton of additional information that would help put it in context -- a specific time period in 2007 would be nice, as would and driver and OS versions -- but we've been hearing about NVIDIA issues with Vista from the start, and this seems to confirm it. So that's pressure by Intel to support incompatible chipsets, outrage by Dell and Wal-Mart that the Vista Capable program was confusing customers, Microsoft executives saying they had been "personally burnt" by Vista, and now what looks like a huge NVIDIA driver problem -- who knows what else is going to come out of this lawsuit? At this point we're half expecting a photo of Gates signing a Save XP petition.

 

So I just got my new system and did the sp1 update. I have had a few minor issues but all in all I kind of like Vista (i know, whats wrong with me).

Anyone using Wallwatcher with Vista SP1 (32-bit)? Since the upgrade, Wallwatcher (latest version I can find) crashes after about 8 hours of use. I have to reboot the computer to start it over. I can not get it to shut down otherwise.

Ok, so I need some advice.

I like alot of the features Vista offer, but have been having some issues crashing out of games. (CoH crashing completly, connection issues in Sins of a Solar empire etc)

I am now trying to decide if it is actually and issues with Vista or something else. Also if i should just format and install XP. Will i miss DX 10 for upcoming games (AoC for instance)? or is it worth slogging it out with Vista and hope for the best?

Any suggestions?

Given the XP SP3 I'd say XP has more than enough life in it to drag us until Windows 7 which can't possibly be any worse than Vista. And unless developers are suicidal, they will not ship a DX10-ONLY game until then, anyway.

HantaXP wrote:

Will i miss DX 10 for upcoming games (AoC for instance)? or is it worth slogging it out with Vista and hope for the best?

I think that's very much up to you. I personally will hold off until the next version of windows, and I don't care if Fallout 3 is Vista-only, I'm not upgrading.

Maybe developers will consider the market and hopefully keep the DX10 features as a "plus" for people who upgraded.

Well does DX10 make that much of a difference? (I guess that is probably the question I should ask.)

Is it worth running a game in DX10, using Vista, when a significant amount of the pcs resources are being shunted into the OS, versus DX9 using Xp (less of a resource hog)?

Is it worth running a game in DX10, using Vista

I believe the only game that is actually playable in DX10 is Hellgate London

Based on the few side-by-side comparisons I've seen, no, I wouldn't go to Vista just to get DX10. The graphical "improvements" were negligible and the performance hit to get them was significant. (Keep in mind this is from someone who's using Vista and is perfectly content with it as a day-to-day OS; it's just not something I'd go out of the way to get.)
---Todd

So how easy is it to do the sp1 update for Vista, are they already pushing the sp1 updates through the regular windows update program?

The reason I ask is that I got my new laptop and I have yet to have any problems with it, it has been rock solid. I hear sp1 fixes a lot of issues but right now I am not experiencing any problems. In fact I used the vga out on the laptop so I could do dual monitors and edited the most recent podcast on it across both screens at full rez. I totally expected it to crash at one point but it preformed flawlessly for several hours on two different nights.

So should I risk the update?

It's coming via windows update. Just wait.

Gaald , I did it and didnt have any problems and believe me, i know nothing about computers. So it was easy (but maybe I was just lucky).

Hardware and driver setups as variable as they are, you never know what *could* happen with a SP update, but I can tell you I had no problems whatsoever and I think that's reflective of the majority of systems out there.

They're not pushing SP1 yet, but they will. I'm going to sit on it for a little while longer.

I did eat 11 updates this morning, yesterday being the second Tuesday and all.

shihonage wrote:

And unless developers are Microsoft, they will not ship a DX10-ONLY game until then, anyway.

You had a typo there, although I suppose you could argue that they are suicidal.

If you do a windows update it may already be listed depending on your hardware (there is still a driver issue with some apps/devices and these pcs aren't getting the advert). They are pushing it currently just in waves so everyone and their mom doesn't get it at once.

I just downloaded the SP and updated that way, taking a chance and no naughty resulted from doing that, it's pretty much straight forward. I suggest you install SP1 because it does fix annoying issues, and brings Vista up to what it should have been.

As for DX10, Assassin's Creed has been billed as being faster under DX10 under Vista, so come Friday, we'll see if that's true. My copy's getting posted to me now....ooooh the tingling starts

samfisher wrote:

As for DX10, Assassin's Creed has been billed as being faster under DX10 under Vista, so come Friday, we'll see if that's true. My copy's getting posted to me now....ooooh the tingling starts :)

I just got Assassin's Creed on Monday (review copy). Can't say if it's better under Vista than XP, but I do have it running with max'd out graphic settings (at 1680x1050 or something like that) and there's been nary a hitch (aside from one crash to the desktop) on a system set up with a GeForce 8800GTS and Intel Core 2 Duo CPU.
---Todd

I just bought a bunch f new PC parts! Woot!

Q6600 ,Mobo ,4gb of ram and a new case. I wanted to install Windows Vista 64 bit but I have no idea how well it works.

I had Vista 32 bit running with my single core FX-55, and games ran like sh*t. I am assuming it was because I had a single core proc.

Who uses the 64 bit version and how well do games perform with it?

Q6600, 8GB (it's so cheap, I couldn't help it) and a 8800GTX on Vista 64. Everything save Crysis works perfectly well at 1920x1200 w/everything maxed.

It wasn't great w/2GB as just about any modern game at 1920x1200 is wanting to suck down 1.5GB and often times pushes the 2GB limit, so when you exit a game or tab out Vista w/2GB swapped for frigging forever. 4GB fixed that.

You'll either need Vista SP1 install media or you'll need to pop out 2GB in order to install. After you're all patched up, you should be fine again with 4GB.

Only problem I've had with 64bit and games is that 90% of the games on GameTap are not 64bit compatible and wont even download.

If they're 32-bit games, they should work fine. The only thing 64-bit doesn't support is 16-bit applications. But I would think most of GameTap's emulators would run in 32-bit mode anyway.