What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.727 Comments
- ronjon13, on 06/26/2008, -39/+302i always felt like i was the only person who has never ever seen vista crash
- AdamTReineke, on 06/26/2008, -59/+245I've been using a newly built 64-bit Vista Ultimate machine as my main computer for about two months now, and it has been amazing. I use it for programming (VB.net and PHP), gaming (World of Warcraft), and browsing.
First thing to do: disable UAC. This will make everything behave better. :-)
2nd thing, if you have less than 2GB of RAM, upgrade it. I stuck 8GB in mine for $120. It flies. - captpisspants, on 06/26/2008, -35/+174I was hoping someone would write a good article about this. Most of its faults are alterable, and when you're finished (or even if not) you've got yourself a damn good operating system.
However un-liked.
Plus the move from XP to Vista isn't as hard at all. It's like dating an ex's younger, sexier, but still inexperienced sister. - rasmasyean, on 06/27/2008, -4/+91Vista uses extra RAM to store commonly used files in a new activity known as “disk caching”. The computer uses artificial intelligence to determine which files will be used most and copies it to RAM (where it is much faster than accessing your hard disk). This includes components of the programs you use on a regular basis. When you need more RAM for programs you launch, etc. the computer purges the “least likely used” files from RAM to make room for the new program. That’s why if you look at the performance monitor, Vista always has near zero “free” RAM. So in theory, the more RAM (for disk cache) you have, the faster your computer will operate. This can also be augmented (to a lesser effect) with a USB flash drive with a technology called ReadyBoost. Just stick it in and select “Speed up my system” and leave it there.
So I guess, until SSD’s are economical, this is the way to go, especially since RAM is so cheap. I was thinking of going up to 8 GB too. LOL
I wonder if this ups the Sleep electricity since it has to keep the RAM alive. - krystalo, on 06/26/2008, -32/+113SP1 solved everything. Ok, almost everything. SP2 will fix everything, kinda like it did with XP.
- Evi1d33d, on 06/27/2008, -30/+109I fail to see how that extra 4GB will make it 'fly' under normal circumstances...
- Hangly, on 06/27/2008, -72/+132Not THAT bad?
Ok maybe not that bad, but it's still not good. - wolferz, on 06/27/2008, -16/+75I have UAC enabled and everything behaves fine... actually better as I don't have to worry what might get installed on my computer without me knowing about it.
Disabling UAC is not a good idea in general. The average user wont get a UAC prompt unless A... they are trying to install something or B something is trying to install without permission. On the other had it does provide an extra layer of protection from malware of all kinds... unless you just OK everything that pops up, in which case by all means just disable it.
As a "power user" I get one or two UAC prompts a week. Hardly anything to cry over.
On a side note for all the linux fan boys I'm sure to attract. I actually get more prompts for credentials in Linux than I do in vista... probably cause I'm constantly having to go into "superuser" mode to fix something that isn't working. Want to connect to my network drive? Gotta switch to root. Firefox decides it's already open when its not? Need root to fix it. Wanting to refresh my ip address without changing any network setting? Needs root.
On Linux I find myself switching to superuser probably 2 to 3 times a day. - estvir, on 06/27/2008, -6/+65I literally can't remember the last time Vista has crashed and I've been running it for a really long time. Even dodgy drivers (Hello Nvidia) aren't really capable of taking down the whole system any more, now your screen goes black for a second and the drivers restart.
- mvent2, on 06/27/2008, -21/+78Why does it have to be "not that bad", especially when it costs a lot and it's forced on you by most OEM's? Based on the near infinite resources Microsoft has, it should be the best collection of code we've ever seen, yet it has to be defended as "not _that_ bad"...
Why can't Microsoft make an infinitely better OS than Apple or even a collection of open source programmers? - MidnightRIder77, on 06/27/2008, -50/+106I bet it would be a lot easier to make a top 20 list on why XP is better.
- colasrtney, on 06/27/2008, -7/+60Yeah, 512 ram=Vista ready, right. Someone sold my dad a new Dell laptop with 512 and a low end Intel cpu...the horror.
- fugazied, on 06/27/2008, -10/+62Isn't disabling UAC like giving everythig root permissions?
- thegodfaza, on 06/27/2008, -4/+55It's like saying "don't ask me if I want to run this virus, Just do it."
- Philbert, on 06/27/2008, -2/+48Where do you get major memory hog? It uses up memory by preloading your most commonly used programs, then if that memory is needed for something else it becomes available. Sounds like it uses memory more efficiently to me.
- Visual77, on 06/27/2008, -57/+104I absolutely love Vista!
The Linux community has grown so much thanks to the release of Vista.
But how could it not when some of the reasons to use it include a 10% reduction in performance (#3), the driver support isn't utter crap (#8), it has poor exception handling (#9) and so long as you're willing to quadruple the RAM the moment you buy the machine, it'll work (#10). - neel360, on 06/27/2008, -11/+56Hmm... lazy writers at Gizmodo, eh? Is that the fourth time that exact picture of Gates has been used with a different backdrop in the last 48 hours? Or fifth? I lost count after three.
- rasmasyean, on 06/27/2008, -16/+55Vista uses extra RAM to store commonly used files in a new activity known as “disk caching”. The computer uses artificial intelligence to determine which files will be used most and copies it to RAM (where it is much faster than accessing your hard disk). This includes components of the programs you use on a regular basis. When you need more RAM for programs you launch, etc. the computer purges the “least likely used” files from RAM to make room for the new program. That’s why if you look at the performance monitor, Vista always has near zero “free” RAM. So in theory, the more RAM (for disk cache) you have, the faster your computer will operate. This can also be augmented (to a lesser effect) with a USB flash drive with a technology called ReadyBoost. Just stick it in and select “Speed up my system” and leave it there.
- drakia, on 06/27/2008, -10/+45Why would I bother upgrading to Vista, and _risk_ the problems people have with it, when XP is working perfectly fine as it is? Why fix what isn't broken?
- bob12321, on 06/27/2008, -3/+36Yes.
- superman787, on 06/27/2008, -12/+45world of warcraft does not count as gaming. i'm sorry.
- Antonton, on 06/27/2008, -16/+47If you have to write an article about why something "isn't that bad" and a few of your arguments are that it's "almost as good as XP," you have an issue, especially if you follow with 5 major problems. Essentially, that reads as "Here are 10 things that are not horrible, and now 5 things that are!"
There's a reason Dell allowed people to downgrade from Vista to XP. - samthurston, on 06/27/2008, -16/+46don't forget "fatter" and "more expensive"
- fugazied, on 06/27/2008, -1/+31The younger sister only rides in Porsches, the older one was happy in a Ford.
- iplayyouandme, on 06/27/2008, -35/+65"Ten Reasons Why Vista Isn't That Bad"
If you have to say that then it sucks. You don't have to make excuses for a product if it's good. Intel has rejected Vista.
Et Tu, Intel? Chip Giant Won’t Embrace Microsoft’s Windows Vista
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/et-tu-int ... - inactive, on 06/27/2008, -9/+37MAC is an address
Mac is for ***** - Darkx1337, on 06/27/2008, -5/+31You aren't the only one. The only bsod I saw in vista was when I was running windows 2000 in a virtual box.
- NewPunk, on 06/27/2008, -17/+43Vista is good, not perfect, but no software ever is. Everyone just hates change.
- kenplaysviola, on 06/27/2008, -19/+45Glad you are not my systems admin! I know people complain about the UAC being annoying, but it's there for a security reason. You might as well as tell people to not put a password on their computer so that they can save time logging in.
- simg, on 06/27/2008, -3/+28works fine for me with 2 GB.
turning off superfetch is a good idea for most people (stops that annoying disk activity) - zmjone2992, on 06/27/2008, -2/+27Mine never ever grinds. Like ever
- Visual77, on 06/27/2008, -19/+43You know, when you have to tweak the operating system that is most targetted at those who don't know the slightest bit on how to tweak, something is wrong.
Linux is for tweaking. Windows is for idiot proof email checking. - ExRe, on 06/27/2008, -6/+29That's too bad. Lucky for us Vista is a bit more intelligent and stores commonly used data and keeps old stuff in memory longer (until something else needs the space).
Makes things load much faster. - simg, on 06/27/2008, -6/+29UAC is bloody annoying. what's "the right way" not to be annoyed by it ?
- ozid, on 06/27/2008, -2/+23You didn't index your hard drive, did you?
- scotishstriker, on 06/27/2008, -10/+30games work better on xp isn't really a reason. thats what number 3 says
- thecheatah, on 06/27/2008, -25/+45holly *****, 8gb? I have 4gb and I NEVER use all of it. I even run 3 virtual machines (winxp ie, winxp ie7, kde 4 live cd).
Guess what im running? (something free) - chrispr, on 06/27/2008, -8/+28Comparing a horribly designed warning dialog to passwords is a terrible analogy.
- hapax, on 06/27/2008, -21/+40It's not that bad because it still plays Windows games with the same performance but better graphics.
And by Windows games I mean Solitaire and Minesweeper. - samthurston, on 06/27/2008, -4/+22This article is what is called "damning with faint praise"
It's like if you said to your girlfriend "those pants don't make your butt look _that_ big."
I think the most hilarious thing is that in #1 they say it's "more secure" and then in #7 they basically say "go ahead turn UAC off" thereby disabling the most important new security feature. - inactive, on 06/27/2008, -9/+27if you have a weak system that you put together with a budget in 2004 i could see why you're so against vista, but any comp with a sata 3.0 hard drive, a dualie or quad cpu and 2gb+ ram should simply upgrade and see the difference
- sarchosis, on 06/27/2008, -18/+36When you have to constantly say "it's not as bad as it was", you have a major problem. I think MS should just start a new edition of windows up from scratch, maybe take a cue from OS X and make it a Unix-like platform.
- sindex, on 06/27/2008, -1/+18Vista crashed once for me, and it was due to bad video drivers. And "crash" isn't really a good word for it, since the screen fritzed, flashed, and then Vista was like, "Yo, your video drivers suck balls. I've recovered and it's cool and all, but you should just know it might happen again." And I was like, "Whoops. Guess I should update those." (or in this case I actually rolled back).
Hate Vista all you want; it's still as good as or better than XP, depending on the feature you're looking at. - WaruiKoohii, on 06/27/2008, -3/+20Interestingly, you're not far from the truth.
In my experience with folks who bash Vista, or just say they hate it, or dislike it, the majority of them either never used it, or used it for a couple of minutes at a friends house or in a store (both of these tend to be iffy experiences, thanks to OEM's who load up Vista with tons of preinstalled software, much of it with processes always running in the background, thus slowing everything down). - samthurston, on 06/27/2008, -2/+19if XPSP2 fixed everything, is Vista such a big deal?
- teh_techie, on 06/27/2008, -7/+23Well THAT'S complete and utter *****...
- Philbert, on 06/27/2008, -1/+17I was all excited about Ready Boost and got a 4GB USB stick from SanDisk. I used it for a few months but to be honest I didn't see much difference. I hate admitting that.
- ozid, on 06/27/2008, -8/+23I used Vista for almost a year before I switched to OS X. I'll be completely honest: on the systems I used it on that had compatible hardware, it was a great OS. It still is a great OS. The main reason for me switching is I had been planing on it for a while, and I wanted to learn OS X inside and out like I have known Windows for so many years.
Both are great experiences IMO. The biggest problems I see are from people who upgrade their OS without upgrading any hardware or buy under-equipped machines. The same thing can be said for people who upgrade to Leopard from Tiger, except you can't buy under-equipped Mac's (except for the bottom of the line Mini, which I got... and I had to upgrade. - WallnutBoy, on 06/27/2008, -0/+15It's not that we're disagreeing with him. It's that he's just being a plain *****.
Vista constantly uses about 40-50% RAM, however much RAM I have installed. That's the way it works (see; Philbert's comment) It uses about half my RAM, but funnily enough it RARELY uses anything MORE than 50% - because it handles RAM differently and, in my opinion, a lot more efficiently. - MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/27/2008, -0/+14Vista normally pre-loads the files and programs you use, so the extra ram will definitely give you a boost.
Also having a fast hard drive and at least a dual core processor helps a whole lot. -
Show 51 - 100 of 733 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is