[Topgun]

boobies is by far, the best os.

XP and Mint here btw.

[pecenipicek]

got back up to vista x64 again. mmm. after some fiddling with services and eliminating most of the startup crap, i'm at 990 megs of memory usage after a 3 hour gaming session and 700-800 megs of ram used after booting



and also, eliminated superfetch. screw you windows, i want my ram when i need it, not when you think i need it.


also, is a 25 gig page file really overkill?

laughably enough, not really. It starts to get usefull when doin subdiv displacement, especially on higher subdivisions of models... had C4D hit 20 gigs on a really insane render i tried once. 12 hours rendertime, of which 10 were used to make the displacement...

[S-99]

I might try a distro of Linux (one from the computer magazine I get - they make their own distro of Linux and put an ISO on their disk which people can use).

Check out remastersys. Google it, essentially you install any distro of ubuntu you want, install and configure it as you like. Then remastersys will take the system how you have it on the hard drive and turn that into an installable livecd.

Also, great for making a personal preconfigured backup of your OS when you're screwed in a crunch. I was able to use remastersys to replicate ubuntu as she sees and knows it on her eeepc and put it on her big laptop. Very handy, and of course, very easy to create you're own distro with it.

[Bobboau]

it's amazing we have as many people using Linux as we do ether vista or 7

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Well, Windows 7 is still pretty new, and Windows Vista isn't all that good from what I've heard, so there's your probable justification.

[haloboy100]

Windows Vista isn't all that good from what I've heard, so there's your probable justification.

I was on my dad's perfectly brand new laptop one day, and because I reported very slight lag watching a flash movie on newgrounds one day, everybody instantly knew I was using Windows Vista. I guess it really is that bad.

[The E]

And I guess you people really know how to accentuate the negative. Vista wasn't bad, it was just a) not XP, b) Victim of a horrible marketing department  and c) not 7.

Taken on its own merits, it was quite good. Seriously. I used it for two years, without a single crash, and without any of the issues people keep whining about. I should note, however, that I have never used XP for any length of time...

[Bobboau]

And I guess you people really know how to accentuate the negative. Vista wasn't bad, it was just a) not XP, b) Victim of a horrible marketing department  and c) not 7.

Taken on its own merits, it was quite good. Seriously. I used it for two years, without a single crash, and without any of the issues people keep whining about. I should note, however, that I have never used XP for any length of time...

so you went right from 98 to vista?

[Topgun]

And I guess you people really know how to accentuate the negative. Vista wasn't bad, it was just a) not XP, b) Victim of a horrible marketing department  and c) not 7.

Taken on its own merits, it was quite good. Seriously. I used it for two years, without a single crash, and without any of the issues people keep whining about. I should note, however, that I have never used XP for any length of time...

taken on its own merits huh? so like, not comparing to any other modern os?

[The E]

Compared to Linux and MacOS (which was what I was using before).
And compared to all the bullcrap people who couldn't get over the "It's not XP!" thing were spewing. Now, there are legitimate complaints about Vista to be made (all of them fixed in 7), but others, like the reorganization of the UI, or the misbelief that Superfetch would suck resources based on people misinterpreting what they saw in the task manager? Those I do have an issue with.

[haloboy100]

what about people who have legitimate slowdown running vista compared too XP, and the higher hardware requirements vista requires for some applications and games compared to XP?

[The E]

I couldn't care less. I used a system that was designed for Vista, according to the recommended system specs for Vista. If you tried to use Vista on something that does not meet those requirements, you won't get the optimal performance. Note that there is a class-action lawsuit attached to that issue in the US, where new PCs were marketed as Vista-capable when they weren't.

Having said that, my only point was that, if we go by popular internet opinion, Vista is the worst OS ever, designed with the explicit goal of not working. I would just like to point out that this is not, in fact, so.

[Topgun]

for me, the bottom line is that vista's features don't warrant its resource usage.

[Mongoose]

The one major issue I've had with Vista in the extended periods I've used it on the family PC is, as one might expect, the over-aggressive UAC implementation.  I definitely support the concept in principle, as my wall-banging stints with trying to get my mom's school laptop to do anything in a non-administrator XP account have clearly showed just how useless said accounts are, but the implementation was just all wrong.  For instance, I should not have to provide an admin password to delete a goddamn shortcut off the desktop.  (I'd love to meet the project manager who gave that behavior a pass.)  Other than that, though, it's been relatively benign in my experience (besides a few minor quirks, but every version of Windows has those).  It definitely wasn't the best Windows version out there, but I don't think it deserves flat-out vitriol.

[S-99]

Turn on the classic windows interface so it looks like win98 in vista. Doing this disables aero and reverts vista back to the standard 2d accelerated desktop (as opposed to the 3d accelerated desktop which eats ****ing memory).

Another good thing to do is to right click on computer, go to properties. You'll end up at the system properties window, you need to look to the left in the window and click "advanced system settings". Once in there, go to the advanced tab and click the performance button. You'll see a little radio button that says "optimize windows for best performance" (that gets rid of all of the vista eye candy); click that radio button.

The next thing you look for in this window, is setting up vista's virtual memory. For virtual memory set it up to static and not dynamic, and the size of the page file should be how many megabytes of ram you have. So, 4gb of ram, then a 4gb page file.

Feel free to click ok. You'll see vista become very resource friendly. This is all i ever do to vista. Idk if i had a vista friendly computer, but it was core 2 duo with 2gb of ram. It's a great OS. But, people got to complain because it's not xp. Not to mention people not realizing just how awesome UAC is (it's akin to sudo in ubuntu). I think the only areas people should complain about vista are the hardware requirements and possible incompatibility with older xp software, other than that, it was way better than xp was. Aside from that, vista has a start menu similar to xp's default, and then the taskbar is black (oh no, it's so unlike xp, i'm going to **** myself). After that all of the advanced tools you'd find in xp were upgraded in vista and worked better.

[Mongoose]

Like I said, I don't have a problem with the concept of UAC, but its implementation in Vista was deeply flawed.  It pops up way too often, even for tasks which by rights shouldn't really require admin permission.  I've even seen it pop up twice in a row to execute the same exact task.  From everything I've heard, Windows 7 toned things down a great deal.

[Iss Mneur]

Like I said, I don't have a problem with the concept of UAC, but its implementation in Vista was deeply flawed.  It pops up way too often, even for tasks which by rights shouldn't really require admin permission.  I've even seen it pop up twice in a row to execute the same exact task.  From everything I've heard, Windows 7 toned things down a great deal.

Personally, I ran Windows Vista for almost 2 years and the Vista UAC was never much of an issue for me. Any time I have had the UAC pop up way too often is because of poorly coded software (games, namely) that were written assuming that the user is going to be running as an admin.  Though this is a problem on 7 as well, though Vista took the brunt of the blame for breaking everything and forced most software developers to reevaluate their why there software needed admin access.

If you are still stuck with Windows Vista and the UAC is bothering you, try the Symantec "Project 'UAC Tool'" it apparently reworks the Vista UAC to be more like what the UAC is like under Windows 7, though some features of the Symantec tool do not exist in the Windows 7 UAC.  I say apparently because I have never actually used it myself, as it never bothered me, but I understand that it is a vast improvement and is something that the Vista UAC should have included at release.

Vista wasn't bad, it was just a) not XP, b) Victim of a horrible marketing department  and c) not 7.

Spot on.  Microsoft's much mocked and hated Windows "Mojave" experiment proved a and paved the way for c.  I wouldn't blame it entirely on marketing, though they always make a good villain.  In my experience with customers (I am a part time retail sales person) Vista is "bad" because "my smart computer friend says it is" (I guess this would qualify as a marketing failure to the geeks and techs though) or "stuff that worked on XP doesn't work on Vista".  As I noted above, the fact is if it doesn't work on Vista it will probably not work on 7 (XPMode aside) but Vista catches the stink and not 7.