I know I'll be in trouble for doing this...

[whyteo]

But I took the reverse plunge, and reinstalled XP

It really is fast compared to Vista - without the shiny stuff! With 6 years or so behind it, I suppose it has an advantage.

All hardware peripherals working now, which I had trouble with in V64 (Not MS fault really)
I'm amazed how little HD space it consumes compared to Vista.

I'll hope to be back though when SP comes back. I really hope that PC/Mac moves onto 64 bit, but if I can't use my gear, I'll have to remain 32 bit for now.

I hope you guys will take me back in the future!

 

[larryk]

The first step is admitting you have a problem...

The bottom line is if your computer does not meet your needs, what's the point?

You'll be back. Of course, you may be visiting Vistax128.com...

 

[whyteo]

Update - XP going really great! Everything is lightning fast and simple!
I even went back to Media Player 10 which is much easier to navigate about a large library of files. Also when playing a license protected track, it prompts for a transaction/order number which I have saved! That never came up in WMP 11 - The songs were were just unplayable.

 

[bob_c_b]

You have to do what works for you, I haven't moved my wife's PC back to Vista yet, maybe after SP1. Vista x64 works great for me, but if it didn't you can bet I would look elsewhere.

 

[Brink]

But I took the reverse plunge, and reinstalled XP

It really is fast compared to Vista - without the shiny stuff! With 6 years or so behind it, I suppose it has an advantage.

All hardware peripherals working now, which I had trouble with in V64 (Not MS fault really)
I'm amazed how little HD space it consumes compared to Vista.

I'll hope to be back though when SP comes back. I really hope that PC/Mac moves onto 64 bit, but if I can't use my gear, I'll have to remain 32 bit for now.

I hope you guys will take me back in the future!

Hi Whyteo,

Hopefully it will work out better for you when the SP1 comes out sometime in the rumored Q1 of 2008. You are of course still welcomed here anytime you would like to pop in.

Shawn

 

[alltheway]

But I took the reverse plunge, and reinstalled XP

It really is fast compared to Vista - without the shiny stuff! With 6 years or so behind it, I suppose it has an advantage.

All hardware peripherals working now, which I had trouble with in V64 (Not MS fault really)
I'm amazed how little HD space it consumes compared to Vista.

I'll hope to be back though when SP comes back. I really hope that PC/Mac moves onto 64 bit, but if I can't use my gear, I'll have to remain 32 bit for now.

I hope you guys will take me back in the future!

Off with your head...LOL j/k. I would suggest if you got a couple of extra dollars, buy another hard drive and have a dual boot set up like I do. I can always boot to XP whenever I want to. Works good for me so far.

 

[whyteo]

Allah Akbar!

Off with your head...LOL j/k. I would suggest if you got a couple of extra dollars, buy another hard drive and have a dual boot set up like I do. I can always boot to XP whenever I want to. Works good for me so far.

 

[alltheway]

Allah Akbar!

God is great!!!

 

[whyteo]

Insulting the prophet Gates, peace be with him, we will crush the infidels!

Death to the 32-bit infidels!

God is great!!!

 

[f_vo]

Whyteo, great for you, BUT i work with Vista X64 (as others) and the machine is F A S T.

Maybe if you buy a Scsi 15k drive for the OS you will see how fast Vista can be.....

Before Vista i worked with Win2000 Pro, not the same as XP. Never really used XP and i still do not get it what is so fabulous about it.

You must admit that XP is old stuff, maybe great for the time being.....not to insult you.

You will come around to Vista when you are ready.

François

 

[whyteo]

Well I know that on my system, which isn't too slow, XP seems alot faster. With a 15K rpm drive (Currently using a 10K Raptor for Vista) I'm sure any OS will run faster.

Anyway, the speed is not the problem with me, it is the lack of prper driver support that is making me go back.

No webcam (Logitech), no microphone in (X-Fi), no Midi controller (Novation and M-Audio). Lots of my gear is inoperable with Vista 64.

You are right - I'll be back when things are SP better....

Whyteo, great for you, BUT i work with Vista X64 (as others) and the machine is F A S T.

Maybe if you buy a Scsi 15k drive for the OS you will see how fast Vista can be.....

Before Vista i worked with Win2000 Pro, not the same as XP. Never really used XP and i still do not get it what is so fabulous about it.

You must admit that XP is old stuff, maybe great for the time being.....not to insult you.

You will come around to Vista when you are ready.

François

 

[f_vo]

Whyteo, in my opinion one needs everything fast for Vista.

Like memory (at least 2 GB), drives, cpu, videocard etc.

Look at it like this. The next "Vista" or whatever name the next OS will get, will even need more resources then this one.

XP is faster for you and others because it needs less resources.

It is wrong (in my opinion) to stay with an old OS( if you can avoid it.) One can as well go back to NT4.... (joke).

François

 

[hanko panko]

You are my man Francois. I can't see why going back to XP would be a victory. At best it could be a temporary decision.

 

[MaraST78]

Well I know that on my system, which isn't too slow, XP seems alot faster. With a 15K rpm drive (Currently using a 10K Raptor for Vista) I'm sure any OS will run faster.

Anyway, the speed is not the problem with me, it is the lack of prper driver support that is making me go back.

No webcam (Logitech), no microphone in (X-Fi), no Midi controller (Novation and M-Audio). Lots of my gear is inoperable with Vista 64.

You are right - I'll be back when things are SP better....

Sorry, but in that aspect SP1 can be a dissapointment to you You lack driver support, so blame HW vendors for that. MS will hardly do anything about it and Service packs only rarely includes support for new hardware. (maybe some new storage controllers mostly). So when SP1 is out, i don't think that it will solve your problem.

-> f_vo: Vista is everything, but really not fast. The overall desktop performance could really use some polishment. And many MS updates have already improved that aspect, more to come in SP1.

 

[f_vo]

f_vo: Vista is everything, but really not fast. The overall [COLOR=blue! important][FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif][COLOR=blue! important][FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif]desktop[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] performance could really use some polishment. And many MS updates have already improved that aspect, more to come in SP1.

No Mara, i fully disagree. My computer is fast as hell......

What you need is a 3 ghz processor, speedy memory, 15 k drives. Video card of YOUR choice, i always buy a cheaper one since i do not play games....

It is not the OS that is your problem, it is your hardware. Remember this: your software is as fast as your hardware, not the reverse.

With speedy memory i mean DDR3. I will post a topic about my experience of DDR2 and DDR3 memory.

François

 

[MaraST78]

Dear Francois,

I probably have to shed some light on things that you either tend to misunderstand or don't know much about.

First, i'm a hw tech. I know exactly what components are required for specific purpose. EG. "3 ghz" processor is not like 3ghz processor. Old net-burst P4 at 3ghz will barely beat performance of C2D at 1,8 in most scenarios. I've got quad at 2,4...

"Speedy RAM" is not DDR3. DDR3 has terrible latencies which cripples system performance in real life horribly. The only chipset that handles DDR3 really well is X38, which is very new and only few companies released mobos with that chipset (gigabyte was first i think). In addition, even DDR2 @ 800 is enough for todays cpus. Future intel cpus will have up to 12 MB cache which reduces the need for low latency and Mhz packed RAM even more. Not to mention the BIG BIG price of course and it's not available in normal volumes. Simply, DDR3 is nonsense for at least a year, probably more. Vista was released quite a few months ago...
All in all DDR3 will improve performance a bit, but it's surely not so lethal. Common rule is: it's always better to have lots of maybe slower RAM than having rather small ammount of super-uber-fast RAM. 4 GB is absolutely enough even for x64.

"15 K" drives. Hmm. Riiiight. As already mentioned, every OS (and filesystem for that matter) will be faster with faster drives. That's natural. Vista was not meant to be fast only on 15.000 RPM drives, because it's not one of google servers And a common user with average budget would forget about any OS that would recommend hardware like this. That's simply nonsense.
10.000 RPM Raptors are still one the fastest non-scsi drives for reasonable money, so no problem here.

But all this is not the point. I wrote "desktop performance" by which i mean some GUI related ops. Not the speed at which Vista boots (on my 7200 Seagate it's up and running in about 50 seconds, no AHCI) or loads other software. Simple example is start menu, it's just sooo lagging. But i almost got used to it. And no, it's not my lack of "3 ghz" cpu, 'cos aero is almost completely rendered through d3d on a GPU which in my case is 8800GTS.

So..
It is not the HW that is my problem, it is my OS. Remember this: my hardware is as usable as the software i use, not the reverse. Without software, my hardware would be just a pile of junk.

And btw, when doing your DDR3 experience, don't forget to do real-life benchs, not synthetic RAM benchs, these will not prove anything. And real-life performance is what counts at the end.

Live long and prosper \/

P.S. and really remember: Modesty will bring you wherever you want...

 

[f_vo]

Dear Francois,

I probably have to shed some light on things that you either tend to misunderstand or don't know much about.

First, i'm a hw tech. I know exactly what components are required for specific purpose. EG. "3 ghz" processor is not like 3ghz processor. Old net-burst P4 at 3ghz will barely beat performance of C2D at 1,8 in most scenarios. I've got quad at 2,4...

"Speedy RAM" is not DDR3. DDR3 has terrible latencies which cripples system performance in real life horribly. The only chipset that handles DDR3 really well is X38, which is very new and only few companies released mobos with that chipset (gigabyte was first i think). In addition, even DDR2 @ 800 is enough for todays cpus. Future intel cpus will have up to 12 MB cache which reduces the need for low latency and Mhz packed RAM even more. Not to mention the BIG BIG price of course and it's not available in normal volumes. Simply, DDR3 is nonsense for at least a year, probably more. Vista was released quite a few months ago...
All in all DDR3 will improve performance a bit, but it's surely not so lethal. Common rule is: it's always better to have lots of maybe slower RAM than having rather small ammount of super-uber-fast RAM. 4 GB is absolutely enough even for x64.

"15 K" drives. Hmm. Riiiight. As already mentioned, every OS (and filesystem for that matter) will be faster with faster drives. That's natural. Vista was not meant to be fast only on 15.000 RPM drives, because it's not one of google servers And a common user with average budget would forget about any OS that would recommend hardware like this. That's simply nonsense.
10.000 RPM Raptors are still one the fastest non-scsi drives for reasonable money, so no problem here.

But all this is not the point. I wrote "desktop performance" by which i mean some GUI related ops. Not the speed at which Vista boots (on my 7200 Seagate it's up and running in about 50 seconds, no AHCI) or loads other software. Simple example is start menu, it's just sooo lagging. But i almost got used to it. And no, it's not my lack of "3 ghz" cpu, 'cos aero is almost completely rendered through d3d on a GPU which in my case is 8800GTS.

So..
It is not the HW that is my problem, it is my OS. Remember this: my hardware is as usable as the software i use, not the reverse. Without software, my hardware would be just a pile of junk.

And btw, when doing your DDR3 experience, don't forget to do real-life benchs, not synthetic RAM benchs, these will not prove anything. And real-life performance is what counts at the end.

Live long and prosper \/

P.S. and really remember: Modesty will bring you wherever you want...

Well Mara:

well when i say 3 ghz, i mean the new generation of processors... I really do know that latencies "suck" with DDR3, but MY DDR3 is faster then my DDR2, SO? Besides i never go back in technologie, that way you stay longer in the running. Thanks to the DDR3 i only have to use 2 GB of mem, without having a pagefile. My DDR2 pc has 4 gb, but 3 would be enough.

So both my computers proof that faster and less RAM work better then slower and more RAM!!!!!! I really do know that 1600 MHZ Kingston DDR3 mem has a better latency then the 1333 MHZ i have, even if the 1600 MHZ latency is worse then DDR2 mem.

The shop where i buy my pc's told me that the X38 was coming, but i did not want to wait.

Talking about P3's and P4's here???? I thought this was a discussion board on VISTA X64. I do not see anyone here using a P4 with VistaX64....I myself still have a Dell 600 (P3) and a Pentium4 1700 mhz. Both use Win2000Pro. Since software demands more and more of the hardware these computers are used for the family for fun.

As for 15k drives expensive? I bought 5 SAS 300 gb drives on Ebay for 159 € each, SO?

A Dell card Perc5I with 256 mb cache for around 100 €.

If i was loaded with money i would have bought new stuff.

Bottom line is (and you say this yourself) that "your software is as fast as your hardware". Vista demands more of your hardware that is way your OS seems to be slower. I only stated that that was not the case. As for programs saying your computer has "certain stats", i do not follow that. If my pc is fast then i am happy. If yours or others are faster i really do not care.

I am not impressed with whatever job you do. I worked 20 years with IBM computers at work, first S38, then the AS400. So what. To tell you that i really know what i talk about.

Your problem, since you have a 2,4 GHZ Quad and 10k Raptors is your .... memory. Buy some faster mem, this helps.

QUOTE YOU: "Live long and prosper \/".

P.S. and really remember: Modesty will bring you wherever you want.. END QUOTE YOU.

Modesty has nothing to to with this. I simply pointed out that VISTAX64 is NOT slow and if you feel or know it is slow then upgrade here or there.

Picture this: we are on a car-discussion board:
Suppose is drive a Volkswagen Diesel (not Turbo) and the family members = 5. Then i have to drive up a mountain and i say "my car is too slow to follow those huge 4x4 that you see alot in the states.

No my motor is not powerfull enough to do the job. So my hardware is not strong enough to follow others. Must i say that the roads are demanding too much from the car?

But since you are a modest guy, you will ending up seeing the whole world, right?

I am here on the board to discuss VistaX64 and to try help others and find solutions for my own problems, nothing else.

I am not the one here putting his hardware in every reply that is here. And i do not mind others do. But if someone asks me i say it. Period.

The problem with guys like you is: you want to bash someone and try to do this sofisticated....with a smile or joke, meanwhile the other person gets it. Sorry i am not like that. If i have to say something i will give it to you straight.

François