What is Digg?263 Comments
- sockpuppets, on 12/02/2008, -11/+152I've been running Vista 64bit for over a year and it's been fantastic. Don't listen to the haters. Disable UAC and you're good to go. Gaming, Photoshop (64 bit flies!), Firefox, iTunes, etc. All zip and are very stable.
- EnderMB, on 12/02/2008, -12/+70Ten comments and already a wave of hate for Vista from idiots that have never used it.
Vista is a good OS that works and runs just as good as any other. Sure, if you're running a mid-to-low range PC or Laptop it might take a while to boot (I've found that removing the sidebar makes it load a lot quicker) but other than that there are very few problems with it. - NikoKun, on 12/02/2008, -7/+60I've never hated vista, for anything other than the occasional crashes... But my gaming experience on it has been rather good. Never noticed much of a problem at all, even on max settings for tons of new games.
- inactive, on 12/02/2008, -7/+56apples way is much better. call each service pack a new version and charge for it.
- revenz, on 12/02/2008, -8/+51OMG did you just make a vista joke? wow original.
- user500, on 12/01/2008, -19/+61It sucks less than you, try getting a real computer.If it wasn't for the occasional firefox crash I'd say its problem free.
- deepfresh, on 12/02/2008, -6/+4364bit Vista rocks!
- mclewell, on 12/02/2008, -4/+37Same here. I have better performance and stability than I did on XP.
- NikoKun, on 12/02/2008, -8/+39Jeeze... I wish people like you would remember... XP sucked balls hard too, before it's service pack 2 and updates.
- mnortei, on 12/02/2008, -13/+42Vista doesn't suck to be honest... *prepares for digg rage*
- DeathRay2K, on 12/02/2008, -6/+35They're equal if you have a decent machine.
- roxgod666, on 12/02/2008, -3/+30Yes...because them rushing Windows 7 is such a good idea after what happened with Vista.
- watcht, on 12/02/2008, -9/+31Don't the Vista haters know it's no longer cool to bash Vista with no backing facts.
- EXTER, on 12/02/2008, -4/+24These comments suck.
- Spanq, on 12/02/2008, -1/+19How about finishing the feature where it can copy files faster than 10-15mb/sec? And don't bother giving me the "they fixed that in SP1" ***** because no, they didn't.
- seanthebond, on 12/02/2008, -12/+30I have a question for gamers using Vista, as I haven't paid a lot of attention lately:
Has Vista gotten better gaming/FPS wise? I dropped a good 20 FPS or so in some games when I switched from XP to Vista, making me switch back again later because of it. - Psythik, on 12/02/2008, -2/+19Don't disable UAC, put it in "Quiet Mode":
http://tweak-uac.com/ - sirbeta, on 12/02/2008, -2/+19I'm glad. If SP2 follows through like SP1 did, I welcome it with open arms.
- hungryduck, on 12/02/2008, -2/+18Yes.
I assume you mean a Mac computer and not a MAC Address. - JasonCox, on 12/02/2008, -12/+26Obviously you've never used Windows Vista.
- jumanous, on 12/02/2008, -3/+14For any DX10 native games, then it is actually faster than xp and looks significantly better. For Dx9 stuff, it is fairly similar. Really if you have a Radeon 4870 / X2 or a Geforce 260 / 280 you will eat most games for breakfast in 1920x1200 these days. Even an 8800GT does most games in full in 1280x1024. The Nvidia drivers are finally getting a whole lot better, and with the CUDA we can expect to see some awesomeness on the horizon. Plus the Radeon ones for Crossfire are now finally getting to a point where the are useable.
Keep in mind, I'm a bit of an Nvidia fan though... probably all the "nvidia, the way it's meant to be played" brainwashing, but hey... although I'd like to believe it was all the trouble I have had with ATI cards along the way.
Whatever you decide to do though, get x64 version. Vista 32bit is utterly pointless and you can play anything on x64 that you can on 32bit (give or take a few drivers for obscure stuff). - thejammonster, on 12/02/2008, -2/+13agreed! Vista Ultimate x64, running rock solid for 6 months now. i also think it makes a bigger difference with newer technology like quad cores and the higher end lines of video cards
- Gizza, on 12/02/2008, -5/+15I've also beeing using Vista 64bit for over a year, and I don't even see the point in disabling the UAC. I any given week I would be lucky(unlucky) if I see it more than once or twice. The only time it ever comes up is when I install and uninstall something, which isn't really all that often.
Remember also that disabling the UAC doesn't just get rid of the prompts, it effectively brings Vistas security back down to XPs level.
That being said, I'm looking forward to being able to customise when the prompts show up in 7. - Gizza, on 12/02/2008, -3/+13As opposed to Apple's
""Tell ya what... pay us full price today, and whenever we get around to it, maybe a year, or two, or three, we'll provide an update that will make the product work the way it should've the day you bought it and we'll charge you full price for it again." - Vallsurf, on 12/02/2008, -3/+12Yeah and you pay for your service packs.
Did that Simpsons parody hit a little too close to home? - ghostlywind, on 12/02/2008, -3/+12I have 64-bit Vista and game on it, after i disabled UAC and went through all the settings and tweaked it to the way i like it; Vista became a great operating system. There are some features in Vista that have kept me from reinstalling XP.
- FKnight, on 12/02/2008, -1/+10UAC Provides:
1) Elevation prompts for when you do something that may impact system settings
2) File system and Registry Virtualization so that applications that were written under the assumption that a user is an administrator will not fail to function under a regular user account
3) IE Protected mode which runs IE in a restricted user context which prevents websites from being able to do pretty much anything to your computer.
#2 has the side benefit that even if malware gets passed IE Protected Mode, any file system changes to restricted areas or registry changes to restricted keys are redirected to the virtual store. This has the potential to make antimalware software better able to remove infections. Unfortunately, I don't have enough confidence in antimalware vendors to write helloworld.
Disabling UAC turns all of this off. - thejadedmonkey, on 12/02/2008, -3/+11Uh, Bill Gates doesn't run Microsoft anymore ;)
- Silverskater145, on 12/02/2008, -5/+13So you're saying that no company should ever attempt to release bug fixes, update or improve their software. I don't see service packs as anything irrational or extraordinary. We've all been downloading updates for everything we have for as long as I can remember. It's not like they're charging us for it.
Take your head out of your snobby ass. - maz2331, on 12/02/2008, -4/+12My condolences.
- afx1, on 12/02/2008, -3/+10you're
- ExRe, on 12/02/2008, -4/+11I've been using 64bit on my desktop for a few months (since I bought it), 32bit on my laptop for almost 2 years.
Only problems are from Creative and Logitech drivers. - renegadeafk, on 12/02/2008, -1/+8+1 disabling uac is just silly when you can do this.
- grumpyrain, on 12/02/2008, -3/+10You do realise that 95% of the stuff inside service packs are bug fixes and enhancements that are available prior to the service pack being released? It just makes it quicker to install a new box if you can slipstream install the SP.
- slayernine, on 12/02/2008, -6/+13You only lose performance if you have a crappy system that wasn't built with gaming in mind.
I love running Vista, its much smoother than XP and it rarely has crashes or issues. Its just a better OS - renegadeafk, on 12/02/2008, -3/+8on my desktop with a 9600gt and a x2 5600+ fps is same as xp here as well.
guru, it's not really the fault of dx10 here.. in fact dx10 was build mainly for better performance and less overhead. Some games, such as crysis add extra "dx10 only effects" (which aren't even really directx 10 only) as a gimmick. also they have just tacked on dx10 and not really built the game for it so it suffers in performance. Other games such as Far Cry 2, and assasins creed actually do perform better in dx 10 mode. - enantiodromia, on 12/02/2008, -1/+6depends on the user. always has. always will.
- Gizza, on 12/02/2008, -0/+5XP was 2000 under the hood too.
- bratterscain, on 12/02/2008, -2/+7^ I rarely lol at comments but anytime someone says "your" an idiot or moran (moron), I just have to lol.
- LAXgoalie0418, on 12/02/2008, -1/+6fail.
- Tenoq, on 12/02/2008, -0/+5Frame rates are on-par these days, more or less. Some games are faster, some are slower. But unfortunately Vista will never be as good as XP for a gaming platform because they took away so much positional-audio support. Many manufacturers haven't bothered re-writing their drivers and software to do the same thing on the Vista platform, so you just get stuck with stereo or software positional audio. Those that HAVE bothered to try and re-work positional audio for Vista (like Creative's ALchemy project) have failed when it comes to widespread support and stability.
Install Vista for your DX10 prettiness - keep XP for your older games and surround-sound. - inactive, on 12/02/2008, -1/+6well its my opinion of course, but I use both on a daily basis for design / web dev work and Leopard has always been much more stable, started up in a fraction of the time, handled fonts better, rendered design work better, been more responsive, and been much more intuitive.
Vista is much better for games obviously - there are ***** all games made for Leopard. However when it comes to work Leopard is a much more productive environment, especially when you start using Spaces.
I dont hate Vista, I just keep my vista machine as stripped down as possible for gaming (it still feel bloated and unresponsive compared to OS X) - andrew2150, on 12/02/2008, -4/+9Microsoft's April Fools Joke
- FKnight, on 12/02/2008, -1/+6What the hell are you people doing on your computer to trigger so many UAC prompts?
- BlakeEM, on 12/02/2008, -4/+9I have an old 8800gts 640 that I got a year ago, core 2 duo (3ghz), 4 gigs ram. I can play most games maxed on DX10 on Vista 64bit (always 30fps+) on my year old machine. Far Cry 2, Fallout 3, Left 4 Dead (not that these are DX10, but they are new games)... all run maxed out at 1920x1200 with 4xAA 16AFF. I do overclock my graphics card quite a bit but anyone can do that (it gives you a good 10fps+ in my experience). Only games I have had to lower setting to high is on Crysis, although Crysis Warhead runs and looks much better. With the power of the hardware today the small frame rate hit is hardly even noticed, but I notice the DX10 eye candy. If stuff looks messed up or runs like crap you're probably doing something wrong or you have a bottle neck in your hardware.
- lordtyros, on 12/02/2008, -3/+7Far Cry 2 is the first game where DX10 doesn't give you a performance hit.
- Fidelio916, on 12/02/2008, -3/+7The summary gave me the impression that there will be performance improvements in SP 2. The article left me disappointed.
- Psych77, on 12/02/2008, -0/+4@mrBitch - that's exactly how it was with the XP launch - buyers were allowed to buy XP with downgrade to NT rights.
- Silverskater145, on 12/02/2008, -1/+5I'm a noob at using a computer? Keep your 4chan/gaming comedy to yourself. Stay at the World of Warcraft forums where you belong.
- twiztidsinz, on 12/02/2008, -3/+7I have a Pentium 4 (3.4Ghz with HT) and an old GPU (Radeon x1600XT) and Vista runs the games I play fine for me.
I do not notice any differences between XP and Vista. -
Show 51 - 100 of 265 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is