VN Man Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 OK, So I installed Windows Vista RTM on my machine replacing Vista RC1. These are the things I experience so far - Vista refused to installed on "Slave" Drive, I have the drive that I want to install Vista on "3S" (3th SATA/IDE drive ASUS's BIOS Language) and it listed as "Second" hard drive. Only when I moved the drive to "First" hard drive that I can do the installation. This is the Vista x64 that I installed here, found it quite difficult to find Antivirus software that run in 64 bit. Tried AVG, CA and they failed. Well they installed but Vista still reported that the program does not run. Finally installed Avast!'s Home Edition Antivirus and no complain from Vista. Took me nearly a day to install Office 2007 and Visual Studio 2005. Office installed under TWO HOURS (don't know what it doing in between, but the machine seemed to be idle most of the time) Visual Studio 2005 - well I have a big hard disk so I installed all the option, including SQL Server 2005 Express Edition. During installation of SQL Server the message pop up and warned me that I need SP2 to be installed before running it. Went to microsoft website to get the SP2 of SQL Server Express, installed that. Got the message that there is available "SQL Server Management Studio Express" to manage SQL in GUI after the installation. Went to Microsoft website again to download and install this "SQL Server Management Studio Express". Installation went right till the end and gave error 295610. Search for it on Microsoft website and found that it related to permissions, tried what suggested and guess what, still the same problem. In the end found out that there is also SP2 of this "SQL Server Management Studio Express", download again the new SP2 of this "SQL Server Management Studio Express". Installed and now all fine so far. OH...one last thing, I foolishly started to defragment the drive and it says "Defragmenting Hard Disks...This may take from a few minutes to a few hours..." and it still running after TWO HOURS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munky Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 This makes me glad that i'm sticking with OS X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asapreta Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Ops, Office installed here in some minutes (2007 full install). What I noticed more was the lack for some "simple" drivers to x64. My Laserjet 1020 has no support till now. And my PlayTV Mpeg Card either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anibalin Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 nod32.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numberzz Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Ya, for me it was OK, not good, not bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takuro Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Office 2007 took about 4 minutes to install on my installation on Vista Ultimate. The performance is amazingly good (so long as you only have a few things open at once.) Things are nice and snappy. It takes about 3 seconds for the sidebar, desktop, and all to load after logging in. After you open a few windows, Vista itself is a resource hog. This is especially true when Media Center is running. But here's the real bad news: unless a program is optimized for Vista, it won't be quite so... "snappy." If you try running a program created for XP or 98, they seem to run REALLY slow. A lot of games run like {censored} unless you use the lowest settings. Once there are games optimized for Vista, this should change though. At random, some XP programs will become stubborn and refuse to run. The taskmanager list them as running processes, but there's really no other sign that they're open. The only solution is to log out, log back in, and click the program's icon again. I suggest that everybody has a small external drive or an extra partition to keep a copy of XP on, especially if you're into games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mifki Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Yeah tried to play Quake 4 last night, absloute {censored}house, thank god for XP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mac-mini Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 i have 2 drives in my computer one is 80GB SATA and the other is 40GB ATA i have vista on the 40GB and XP on the 80GB games on XP and almost everything else on vista Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FabricioGS Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Installed the x86 version of RTM and so far my biggest problem was to run games, specially Counter Strike: Source (witch I love ). Seems to be a driver problem because the same screen errors happens under 3DMark05/06. With the Vista default driver and nVidia´s latest driver is the same. Oh well... Office 2007 installed pretty fast here and no bugs so far. Will try to install Visual Studio 2005 and SQL Server 2005 to test IIS 7 and ASP.NET integration. EDIT: The problem is with nVidia´s driver. Had to install RC2 driver (96.33) to run it properly and it runs slower than XP. It sucks at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murcielago585 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 it runs alright and looks nice but not worth it yet. it sucks every last kilobyte of ram you have, thank god i have 2 gigs. it eats away about 800mb at idle ang i;ve got it using up to 1.66 GB when using ps. and like previous statements, game compatibility is terrible. maybe when there is a new nvidia driver things will change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulmoscow Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 I'm not impressed with Vista at all. IMHO, its interface is ugly and its "simplification" is just confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murcielago585 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 yeah, start menu blows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VN Man Posted November 24, 2006 Author Share Posted November 24, 2006 Some more bad news, just trying to installed Nero 7.5.1.x (x means from 1 to 9) and it refused to installed first attempt - vista says something about incompatibility issues (same error with Visual Studio 2005) but with Visual Studio vista allows the setup to continue regardless and everything installed fine after that. Not so with Nero, after the warning, the setup program bailed out. Which I guest is correct if there are serious issues compatibility wise then the OS should refused to install the program. Anyway, I refused to be defeated tried to install again Nero by running the setup program just right after it bailed out. Guess what? vista now allowed me to install the program after giving me the option to run at "Recommended Settings" (Microsoft way of saying that this software is now run in "Compatibility mode"). The software (Nero) seemed to be happily running along in this mode, right until the end where the install process hung due to Nero's custom DLL using "illegal command". How can it be "Illegal" when the program proven to be running fine in XP/2003/and what ever else people that use this program (Nero) have? And the worse part is that Nero cannot be uninstalled using "normal" method. Same error described above occurred when trying to uninstall. Thanks god for Vista build in "System Restore" Atleast that works... I'm only install Vista as I need to know as much as I can about the OS, its pros and cons. I need to keep up with the games (I'm a Network/Support Engineer)..... So far with my experience Mac OS is by far more supperior in very respect. I mean from software points of view, most (ALL?) software for the Mac run fine even when they the customer switch to the new architecture. Rosetta is a wonderful piece of engineering....It is a shame that SCSI HBA manufacturer (namely Adaptec) dropped support for their products, it would be great if ALL my SCSI devices run on my Hackintosh....then I would not be hesitated in buying the real McCoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
br0adband Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Whaaaaaaa whaaaaaaaaa whaaaaaaaaaaa whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa You whining crying babies. Here we go again with people mouthing off at an OS that isn't officially released yet, nor does it truly have proper driver support across the board yet since it's not officially released yet. See how that works? Besides, you're not supposed to be using it unless you're a software developer, OEM, or system builder - even if you have an MSDN subscription you bought yourself or have access to, you're still not supposed to be using it for personal purposes - so get over it. NOD32 released a Vista compatible version (2.7) a few days ago. The built-in defragger is even slower now because we're talking about a lot more files in Vista than XP ever dreamed of having, and the built-in defragger is not meant for performance, it never was. It's a basic defragger that gets the job done and can be assigned to Task Scheduler to run at night or times when you know you're not going to be using the PC and performance doesn't matter. Whaaa whaaa whaaa. PerfectDisk has a beta version that works for 150 days and is compatible with the RTM build, it's fast as hell and... well... it's PerfectDisk, the best defragger on the planet. Go get it. If you're cheap and choose not to buy that product when it's "OFFICIAL" on January 30th, here's a free Vista compatible defragger that does basically what the built in defragger does and is a helluva lot faster: http://www.auslogics.com/disk-defrag/index.php If you'd taken the time to go to Ahead/Nero you'd see that Nero 7.5.7.0 if "officially" Vista compatible - I'm currently using it under Vista Ultimate 64 in testing, haven't had one issue with it since I installed it and have already burned over 50 DVDs and CDs with it on both the internal 8x DL drive and my external 18x Plextor USB. Helps to do research before just complaining about stuff that doesn't work - oh, let me clarify that: older stuff that doesn't work because newer versions are available that do. I need to keep up with the games (I'm a Network/Support Engineer)..... Exactly what does that mean, anyway? Vista isn't officially released yet, so games aren't going to work correctly for the most part since neither ATI nor Nvidia have released proper fully functional drivers as of yet - that'll happen on or around January 30th when Vista is, again, officially released. Hope this helps clear up some of the constant dreck we keep getting spammed with about Vista. It does work, and it'll work even better on January 30th. Went through all this {censored} with XP before it was officially released, and now with even more people on high speed connections, it's just going to get worse. bb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baliw Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 I agree with you br0adband, Vista is not yet officially out so the drivers for those exotic hardware are not available. I'm currently running MSDN Vista 64 Ultimate version , do not have a problem atm. AVAST anti-virus (free version) is Vista compatible. The current ATI beta driver for Vista is more stable than the older version. And you dont really need a defragger for NTFS volumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe75 Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 And you dont really need a defragger for NTFS volumes. All file systems eventually need to be defragmented Twice as much for overclocked systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VN Man Posted November 25, 2006 Author Share Posted November 25, 2006 Please read again- "In the Games" -... I suspects more and more people will be using Vista and "I need to be in the Games" in order to keep "up with the trends", so I need to know the pros and cons... And what all this whahhhh...ahahhhh...don't you ever in your work with 100s people to support on or twp persons coming to you when they trying to install or use something and it did not work??? THIS IS NOT FOR PERSONAL USE!!!! THIS IS WORK.... WHY DO I WANT TO INSTALL VISUAL STUDIO IF I'M NETWORK ENGINEER!!!! Do you ever try at work to get the boss to buy something that you think usefull and been refused because of the budgets....ever think of trying to improve yourself....so you could get a better job.... ENOUGH SAY.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
br0adband Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 I don't know, really, but I do know after being in the computer industry for 30+ years and dealing with situations where I've had thousands of people depending on me to do my best at a moment's notice, I'd like to think my experience with this stuff outweighs a lot of people that are still relatively new to it. And it's not a question of getting a better job, it's a question of making the job you have better by doing it better and learning as much as you can before jumping ship on a bad day hoping for something better. But that's just me... bb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murcielago585 Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 even though drivers and {censored} still aren't out yet, still doesn;t change the fact that it eats away at your ram like its nothing, and withit the start menu xp has a much better way of doing things. I still havn;t had any major problems with it, except the the compatibility issues that you;d expect from an os not out to the public yet. but still, not that great, and not that beneficial to the mainstream user, except for maybe the eye candy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takuro Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 I agree that since Vista isn't even officially released, there still stands to be a great margin of improvement before it ships out on PCs. However, I gave my honest opinion. I didn't do it to bellyache, but to some idea of what Vista is currently like before they go off, download Vista, and feel disappointed. Buy Vista. I'm sure it'll be the shiznit. But right now, it isn't. Simple. Now as far as pointing out the fact that many people got their hands on this when they shouldn't have, thats overstepping a boundary. I just love it when people point fingers here. As if any person here is some sort of saint who never downloaded a single MP3 in his or her life. What do you think this whole site is for? Sure... it's under the guise of having "educational" purposes to help people "run OS X without many conflicts." When it comes to the point of piracy in this place, I think everybody, including myself, should shove their foot up their... mouth. Although I do agree with one thing: if you didn't pay for it, you also haven't bought the right to complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDoggyca Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 for asll u pardon my freanch (winenning {censored} out there sayign this dosn;t work on vista blah blah blah) What you see on my startmenu ios what works out of the box (WITH OUT compadiblity mode one) works and installs NO Porambleam vista Ultimte Edition (x64) Plus all native X64 Drviers installed!!! From Video to even my Logictech Wheel has all X64 Drviers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
br0adband Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 You can make Vista look and work exactly like XP, if that's your choice. As for the RAM issue, Vista isn't XP, and it's better than XP in many ways, most notably the RAM usage. Right now I've got 1.7 of 2GB of RAM in use with several apps running, and this Vista Ultimate 64 machine isn't slowing down - it's actually getting faster. Try loading up an XP machine with 1.7 of 2GB used and watch it choke like a dauchsund trying to chow down a T-Rex thighbone. Before you start spouting off about how much Vista sucks or how bad the RAM usage is, it'll do you well to go find out exactly why Vista uses RAM differently. For so many years now, Windows operating systems haven't managed RAM worth anything, and now that's all about to change with Vista's release. Vista doesn't let your unused RAM just sit there, it puts it to use, constantly, all the time, caching data you've not only used recently but in anticipation of using such data in the future, hence the "massive RAM usage" people are complaining about. It's a "new" OS, it will take time to figure out the how's and the why's of Vista before anyone can seriously start commenting on it. Benchmarking it against XP - which is 5 years old and vastly more developed and stable is simply stupid by any meaning of the word. Throw in beta drivers from ATI and Nvidia and yes, Vista will underperform against XP. But it ain't done yet, not by a longshot. So before you have a cow, go read up about why Vista uses your relatively expensive RAM instead of just letting it sit there idle doing jack squat. bb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDoggyca Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 When I see my ram hit 60-90% of 2 gig I know my PC doing its job... when I launch FSX udner vista i notice my Ram jumps fomr 60% to 30% and then as I watch FSX load ram start oging back up as fast as the game need it.... so when it comes to ram indeed bealive it or not high ram usege show that your PC actully doing it job and when a app need it vista trafures it over to the app that in use.....and when nothing in use your pc takes over the ram in part of the os it need it the most...the more Explore.exe is use the less liky its goign ot crash bealive it or not.... I notice my svchost.exe/system/is alwazs aroudn the 100mb of ram mark unlike xp 32mb mark.... I know some how u looking at htis shots going wow a lot of ram hog... Belaive it or not under X64 is dosn;'t slow down or lag at all even with high ram amounts....2x1gig=2 gig plus 3gig PageFile=stable X64 edition... and since x64 now how to hadle pagefile better then 32 bit verion I could in thory have it as high as 128gig pagefile with out feeling it slow or lagging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VN Man Posted November 25, 2006 Author Share Posted November 25, 2006 I don't know, really, but I do know after being in the computer industry for 30+ years and dealing with situations where I've had thousands of people depending on me to do my best at a moment's notice, I'd like to think my experience with this stuff outweighs a lot of people that are still relatively new to it. And it's not a question of getting a better job, it's a question of making the job you have better by doing it better and learning as much as you can before jumping ship on a bad day hoping for something better. But that's just me... bb remember when I started this post, it is not whining or anything like that....just need to learn about the os, just in case the boss decided to use Vista....this is all about learning and improving one self..... How about no tape drive support in Vista, and don't tell me that if you want to use tape drive you have to go and buy commercial product or use external disk drive instead. What happen to all the people that uses tape drive to archive their data? They cannot upgrade to this wonderful vista and its x64 memory management since the data that they have archive cannot be used if needed.... You may say that Backup Exec can read the data, then I say that in order to use the new OS you need to buy both The new Backup software and the new OS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
br0adband Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 You should end every single comment you make about Vista with: "... not yet." Then you'd be getting somewhere since again, Vista isn't done yet and isn't a retail or commercially available product, but it will be, soon... just... "... not yet." bb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts