Vista: The first 24hrs with Vista

[Chewy509]

Hi Guys,

Work has purchased a new laptop for me (I got to choose the model, it had to be a HP however, since the company I work for is a HP reseller), and it came with Vista Business x64.

Specs: HP 6710b, Intel C2D T7500, 2GB RAM, 160GB HDD, DVD-RW, etc. IMHO it's a pretty sweet laptop, except for the integrated gfx (Intel 965G Mobile).

A quick credit to HP. The only preinstalled sofware was NortonAV, PDF Creator and Roxio DVD Creator. Other than that, not a sign of bloatware in sight! Got rid of PDF Creator and NortonAV, but kept Roxio. Office2007 and Antivirus is supplied by the company volume license, so didn't purchase those with the laptop.

Starting the laptop was a similar experience to Piyono's, however with none of the sensory overload by a heap of things starting at start-up.

The first item was joining it to the company domain... After digging for about 5mins, found the required wizard in the control panel, and had no issues. Onced logged on for the first time, I created a "Identity Profile" for the built-in Thumb reader for logging into systems. (It's works as advertised, no issues encountered so far with the system, and it's cool to show off logging into your laptop just using your fingerprint).

The default UI is a vast change from WinXP, however after a few clicks in the "personalize" desktop, had the system looking and acting like WinXP. I did try out Aero, in particular Flip3D, etc. Well, nice eye cany, but I use my system for work... So out goes Aero.

So far I've encountered no real problems, except for:
* Disappearing LAN adapter. (Up to LAN Connection 3, in 24hrs).
* Legacy apps not playing nice. (Battlefield 2 crashes to desktop on startup).
* Significant pauses when using menu items in explorer, or other applications.
* The inbuilt firewall from what I can tell does no filtering on the IPv6 protocol, but locks down IPv4?
* No default security templates for the "Security Configuration and Analysis MMC Snap-In".
* And that's about it.

RAM usage is about what other people are reporting (about 900MB of start-up), however loading up some large Word/Excel documents, I can see Windows is releasing RAM (it's used for caching) back to the applications.

I did try to run with UAC for a while, but turned it off. UAC seemed to be doing the right thing, but found that it was crying Wolf a couple of times when trying to move documents about. (When importing my old profile from my old laptop to the new one). Basically I found UAC too aggressive in reporting privilege elevation requirements.

I've been looking for a few things, and everytime I went to 'Help' I found the answer I was looking for quickly and effeciently, in regards to finding where MS decided to relocate configuration items.

Initial for me, Vista is just another "Windows". Sure it has it quirks, but overall there's nothing for me to say "Go get it".

Note: I am in the process of installing Windows XP SP2, within a Virtual PC session so I can gain access to some legacy applications.

 

[Tannin]

Why not just format the barstard and install XP in the first place? You won't believe how much faster it is. (I have done stopwatch tests - the differnce is huge.)

But credit where it is due: Vista has just about killed off the age-old vomit box tradition of bringing an already-sluggish system to its knees by loading it with bloatware. They are all shipping reasonably clean now. The reason, of course, is that Vista is already so incredibly slow that not even an HP exec could sign of on making it even worse than it already is. This is, I guess, a sort of progress.

 

[Santilli]

Why not just format the barstard and install XP in the first place? You won't believe how much faster it is. (I have done stopwatch tests - the differnce is huge.)

But credit where it is due: Vista has just about killed off the age-old vomit box tradition of bringing an already-sluggish system to its knees by loading it with bloatware. They are all shipping reasonably clean now. The reason, of course, is that Vista is already so incredibly slow that not even an HP exec could sign of on making it even worse than it already is. This is, I guess, a sort of progress.

ROFL!!!
Plus 1

GS

 

[Chewy509]

Tannin, unfortunately we are being pushed to use Vista (so that our compna support staff can support it, and the applications that the company develops on it). Since I mainly doing system infrastructure planning and system installations, I need to know Vista. (and how it'll effect the business if they choose to deploy it, even against our current recommendations).

I've installed Vista Business x64, due to our new software coming in both x86 and x64 versions, however we have a slew of legacy applications that don't play too well on Vista (namely a few Visual FoxPro based apps). For the legacy stuff, I'm just using Virtual PC for the time being. All but 2 of the VFP apps are considered legacy, and will only be supported on WinXP anyway. So Vista is a non-issue for that.

Additionally since i do software development as a hobby, it's a good deal getting Vista on my laptop. (as well as VC++/VC# and the Vista SDK).

As I said, I've found NO reason so far to get Vista over XP, especially in the SMB world. (Gamers can wet-dream over DX10 all they like, it means squat in the business world).

 

[P5-133XL]

As I said, I've found NO reason so far to get Vista over XP, especially in the SMB world. (Gamers can wet-dream over DX10 all they like, it means squat in the business world).

As far as I can tell, it means squat in the gaming world too. Theoretically it is a good thing: in practice, It sucks big ones. With the few semi-games that have been developed and tested, the problem is that unless you have the very top-end DirectX 10 Nvidia/ATI cards everything is basicly unacceptable. We're talking 30fps on $500+ cards.

The situation is like when DirectX9 was released: The first cards technically ran it but was horrible at it. Fortunately, by the time anything gets released, we'll all be getting the next generation of DirectX10 cards and by then everything should be doing perfect.

 

[Santilli]

As far as I can tell, it means squat in the gaming world too. Theoretically it is a good thing: in practice, It sucks big ones. With the few semi-games that have been developed and tested, the problem is that unless you have the very top-end DirectX 10 Nvidia/ATI cards everything is basicly unacceptable. We're talking 30fps on $500+ cards.

The situation is like when DirectX9 was released: The first cards technically ran it but was horrible at it. Fortunately, by the time anything gets released, we'll all be getting the next generation of DirectX10 cards and by then everything should be doing perfect.

VISTA=M.E.?

Dr. G

 

[Chewy509]

VISTA=M.E.?

Everyone I've spoken to, tend to agree with that statement.

 

[Bozo]

Everyone I've spoken to, tend to agree with that statement.

Same here.

Bozo :joker:

 

[e_dawg]

AFAIK, Vista was supposed to bring some real code / architectural improvements in Vista relative to XP -- much more so than 98 to ME. But I guess the end user experience is somewhat like ME -- prettier, slower UI, but not much substance.

 

[Bozo]

AFAIK, Vista was supposed to bring some real code / architectural improvements in Vista relative to XP -- much more so than 98 to ME. But I guess the end user experience is somewhat like ME -- prettier, slower UI, but not much substance.

The substance died when MS canned Longhorn and tried to "improve" the XP kernal. Everything went in the crapper then.

Bozo :joker:

 

[Splash]

VISTA=M.E.?

Dr. G

Well, I've been calling Vista "ME 2" for a little while.

Of note: I bought a retail full version (non-upgrade) WinME package a couple of years ago, still in its original shrink wrap and all, for US$40. At the time of purchase, I certainly had known for years how crappy WinME was, but I bought it anyway just in case I needed WinME around for testing.

I'll probably do the same with Vista. I'll buy a heavily-discounted retail full (or upgrade) version of Vista in 2012.

PS: I own a retail package of every Windows desktop and server (Server Standard Edition) operating system released since WinNT 3.1 -- including Windows 3.0, 3.1, Windows for WorkGroups 3.11, Win95, Win95-OEM2, Win98, and Win 98SE.

Unfortunately, I trashed my old Windows V1.03 and Windows /386 V2.1 software years ago, along with my Digital Research GEM software.

 

[Chewy509]

Vista, the first week

Well, it's been a week now.

Admittedly Vista isn't all bad, however the bad points are certainly greater in number than the good points, which IMHO make the system Beta quality at best.

I've found out the problem with Battlefield 2, which in the end wasn't Vista fault. It was Intel's...

Let me explain. The latest integrated gfx from Intel, the X3000 and X3100 chipsets (aka 965G) is the first Intel gfx chipset to include Hardware T&L capabilities. However in the current stable driver release the Hardware T&L engine is disabled. There are beta drivers which enable the Hardware T&L engine (which is what BF2 needs), however these drivers are for WinXP and Vista x86 only. (Intel can't release beta drivers for x64 based systems, due to driver signing issues and MS). So for now, no BF2 gaming action.

I took the laptop to a LAN party on the weekend for a few rounds of RavenShield and Q3A. The laptop played really well with RavenShield as well as Q3A. However in Q3A, it did slow down as the complexity of the scene increased. (eg 10x rockets, 100x gibs, explosions, 4-5 players/bots dying, etc). But overall it played well... RvS did GPF/CTD a couple of times during gameplay, but never during a round so wasn't a major issue.

I'm pretty sure I've come across all of Vista's 'quirks' and 'issues', but ultimately would I install Vista at home?

The answer: NO, not on your life.

Once FreeBSD 7.0 goes RELEASE, I'll be going with that as my only OS on my home PC.

 

[ddrueding]

Once FreeBSD 7.0 goes RELEASE, I'll be going with that as my only OS on my home PC.

And you will be playing BF2...how exactly?

 

[CougTek]

You consider playing Battlefield 2 on Intel's integrated graphics? You're truely insane and you will suffer any minute you'll try to do this.

Battlefield 2 requires more than a gigabyte of RAM and a dedicated graphic card to play smootly.

 

[Chewy509]

And you will be playing BF2...how exactly?

Work laptop... I only play it at LANs, which I take the laptop... (Anyway, the current release of WINE apparently plays BF2 ok-ish, so that has FBSD covered).

You consider playing Battlefield 2 on Intel's integrated graphics? You're truely insane and you will suffer any minute you'll try to do this.

Battlefield 2 requires more than a gigabyte of RAM and a dedicated graphic card to play smootly.

BF2 only requires Hardware T&L, and initial tests by Intel (taken with a grain of salt), say 1024x768 medium detail is "playable", personally that means 1024x768 low detail to me... (And the laptop has 2GB of RAM - 1GB for Vista, 1GB for BF2).

Actually the *current* Intel gfx solution isn't half bad... (but certainly no AMD/ATi or nVidia killer).

 

[Chewy509]

Vista is coming to an end

Well, I've had Vista on my work laptop since Jul-07, and to be honest I've had it with Vista....

So Tannin, I'm taking your advice and Vista is going, and here comes Windows XP for the laptop.

Why?
I'm sick of it, hate the lack of performance, the *constant* issues with some legacy applications, and the way it likes to dictate to me how *I* should use MY laptop.

Now a couple of solid reasons:
1. I'm up to "Local Area Connection 25". Driver updates, etc have NOT fixed Vista losing and reinstalling the Broadcom LAN adapter.

2. When I double click on an application to start, eg outlook, wait for it to start, then click on IE to start, WHY does it then 5 secs later AFTER outlook and IE have started, does it bring Outlook to the foreground while I'm trying to use IE. (I need IE for our internal Intranet at work).

3. Service Pack 1 has successfully broken several services that are optional at startup, like the DNSClient, and several other minor non-essential services. (The MS solution is to wipe the HDD clean and reinstall Vista and SP1 again).

4. I used a co-workers 6710b laptop of LOWER spec (slower CPU, less RAM), and it was quicker in most aspects when running Windows XP SP2. (Using explorer, IE, browsing our WAN).

5. I do development work on the laptop, and the build/test run takes 4x longer than the other test/dev PC. (An old HP D510SFF). Now some of this can be accounted due to HDD speed, but still...

6. MS still hasn't fixed the battery usage problem with Vista (due it constantly running the indexing service, as well as the auto-defragmentation service which keeps the HDD spinning). I have turned those services off manually, but they should stop automatically if I'm running on battery...

7. Having read more about the multi-media aspect of Vista, I'm glad to know that most audio apps do not and can not use *any* acceleration features of the underlying sound card... Think no EAX at all for the gamers... (thank DRM for that one - all audio mixing and channel mux'ing/demux'ing now happens in software).

8. The significant pauses mentioned in the first post, have still not been resolved despite numerous updates AND a Service Pack. (I still watch menus been drawn, despite turning off Aero and tweaking the UI performance). Clicking on applications, takes a while for them to start, etc.

9. Slow start-up and shut-downs are becoming annoying.

I'll be removing Vista next Monday, and installing Windows XP... unless someone can give me a REALLY good reason to stick with Vista. (I need time to hunt down, find and download the drivers for the laptop).

BTW, I do think it's fair I've given MS over 6mths and a ServicePack release before ditching it. I tried to like it, I really did... But you can't make a Lada Niva into a Hummer H2 or into a nice BMW M3 with a quick re-spray and a body kit.

PS. Intel only enabled Hardware T&L for the onboard gfx's about 2mths ago for the Vista x64 driver.
PPS. Lada Niva's when sold into Australia initially had to be completely rebuilt to meet Australian safety standards.