My review of Windows Vista x64

[motorcycleguy]

I've been using Vista Ultimate x64 on my x2 4400,4GB ram and 7900GS for 5 hours now. I am still updating the system to my liking and installing all the CAD/Photo software.

It took me 2 tries to install it. I had to delete my partion and reformat the hdd,using installation tool(no problems there)
Installation took me about 30 minutes,which is pretty good.
What surprised me is that the OS already had all the drivers and I didn't have to use any of my 20+ CDs. That saved me about 4 hours.
Sure,later on I may have to update them,but they seem to be as late as what I had on my XP
System seems fast,even though I know it runs programs about 5% slower than XP(so I've heard).
It incorporates writing recognition sofware,which is agreat thing if you have some kind of Wacom tablet. Now you can browse websites with it using...umm.. black&white "god" gestures..yah. Plus you can hand write and it will recoignize(My writing is really bad,but it had no trouble)it and put it to print text.

Overall,I see a lot of eye candy.I don't know if I'll keep it for long.I get bored of these things fast,plus I do require speed for all the photo editing and such

For me,it feels like I've upgraded from Windows 95 to XP-similar,but much better...

So far I didnt' have any problems running anything. Seems like all the programs that I have,already have vista drivers out.

I've yet to look into details,but the only thing that bugs me is a pop up,that comes up every time I want to open something or run a program. It asks you for a permission to open/run it and shows certifications. There's no "do not show me this again" option. I guess I'll have to look into that later

Memory: Out of my 4GB,It seems like the system is using 1.14GB. I don't know for what,but that seems a lot. So,I guess you all better have a lot of RAM.
My guess is,it cashes a lot of eye candy,programs into the RAM,so that it would appear fast-and it is. I would really recommend 2GB of ram for this OS.

All the programs seem to use much more ram. Side bar:50MB,Firefox:110MB,IE:96MB,etc

Ok for now..

[trixstar]

its funny how stores advertise the new windows vista. I was at the source today, and they had a computer running the Vista premium in front of the store to display how well it is.. Well, i decided to try it out to see how bad it is. It is slightly laggy and fairly slower compared to windows xp professional SP2. I checked the rating on the vista and it said 2.8.. sigh* that computer was 699.99.. Not much people can afford for huge upgrades for a decent running computer. I'll stick with my xp until i get the new macbook pro with the leapord OS.

[motorcycleguy]

Due to some hardware changes,I tried taking out 3gb of ram,leaving just 1gb. There's a HUGE difference. In XP,this would not have made much difference,but because of the cashing ability(I suspect) of Vista,it really makes a difference.
with 1gb of ram Photoshop would open and ready in about 40 seconds.
With 4GB of ram it shaved about 28-30 seconds off...

[alysomji]

Due to some hardware changes,I tried taking out 3gb of ram,leaving just 1gb. There's a HUGE difference. In XP,this would not have made much difference,but because of the cashing ability(I suspect) of Vista,it really makes a difference.
with 1gb of ram Photoshop would open and ready in about 40 seconds.
With 4GB of ram it shaved about 28-30 seconds off...

Overall, does Vista experience any slowness on your computer? I would think a computer as up-to-date as yours would run Vista exceptionally well with no slowdowns whatsoever. If that's not the case, that's disconcerting for potential future Vista owners.

[Polaren]

Vista caches alot because of the superfetch feature, which windows XP has but not to the extent that Vista implements it.

[junglebass]

tnx, good to know, altho i knew already that id be useless for me to run it with my 512 heh

[Cafe_333]

I've yet to look into details,but the only thing that bugs me is a pop up,that comes up every time I want to open something or run a program. It asks you for a permission to open/run it and shows certifications. There's no "do not show me this again" option. I guess I'll have to look into that later.Oh wow, they actually kept that?!? I've only tried the rc1 release and every critic highly criticized microsoft for including that annoying feature. Essentially it becomes a 'click here to do work' button, which is ********. Anyway, there IS a way to disable it - all of it, and i've done it. But it's been so long since i've touched Vista that I don't remember anymore. Sorry can't be of much help in this post other than to offer the knowledge that it is possible. :D

[Evil Baby]

Oh wow, they actually kept that?!? I've only tried the rc1 release and every critic highly criticized microsoft for including that annoying feature. Essentially it becomes a 'click here to do work' button, which is ********. Anyway, there IS a way to disable it - all of it, and i've done it. But it's been so long since i've touched Vista that I don't remember anymore. Sorry can't be of much help in this post other than to offer the knowledge that it is possible. :D

Which programs require that permission? I still have RC1 on my laptop and I've never come across that annoying pop up. Only annoying pop ups I get are when I try to install program but I can understand why they are there.


As for a post from above, I think the biggest issues with Vista runing machiens in the stores in the lack of a dedicated video card. My P4 3.06 with a gig of ram and Radeon 9800 pro had no lag what so ever, but the AMD x2 4200+ with 2 gigs of ram on display at Staples does on occasion lag a little bit

[quicksilver7]

Just turn off UAC (Universal Access Control) in the User Accounts section of the Control Panel.

[gamer123]

I was able to run Vista (x86) on my Macbook, yes Intel graphics and Aero runs fine with no lag. The main issue that I am having atm is the ram usage, due to superfetch. On idle, it uses 60-70% or my 1g ram.

I wouldn't turn off UAC, but rather just disable the prompt.

[motorcycleguy]

Yah, I actually figured it out-the UAC feature. It's a neat security thing,but not something I would ever use. Took me half an hour to find the turn off button,while exploring the OS. I could've just googled it,but I like to find things myself,this way I remember them forever...

I won't suggest this OS for anyone with less than a Dual core/Core duo cpu.I turned one of my cores off to see if it makes any difference and it sure did.
2 GB RAM is the minimum for Vista. Forget about 1GB. Having 512mb is just stupid. You'll be running at 30% of your speed,but you can proudly say to your friends what you have installed on your pc... You'll have just enough ram to run a calculator and a notepad.
You get an instance of Photoshop,azureus,media player,firefox and you are up to 1.5GB IDLE. Due to very nice memory management,Vista can use 4+GB or RAM where it most needed,giving you a very nice boost. In XP 2vs4GB would only improve things by about 3-5%.

[lincoln]

So far I didnt' have any problems running anything. Seems like all the programs that I have,already have vista drivers out.


To round off your review, try loading up a game like Call of Duty 2, or Farcry, etc.
You should experience major problems enabling surround sound. As well, you won't be able to enable EAX audio support.

Some people will say "ahhh... who cares about that." But if you play video games, audio is half the experience.

[wonton1017]

My friend is playing on his computer with Vista Ultimate on it, and we're playing the same game with almost the same hardware setup.

Hes getting 20-30 FPS less than what im getting, its weird because the only thing that ihave better than him is my CPU... He has E4300 and i have E6300
To be exact, we've been playing Battlefield 2 and Counter-Strike Source...

These are our hardware:

Me:
Windows XP Pro SP2
XFX 7900GTX
4GB of ram
E6300 @ 3.2ghz

Him:
Windows Vista Ultimate
BFG 7900GTX OC
4GB of ram
E4300 @ 3.5ghz+

[motorcycleguy]

Yep,I am aware of it. It's still slower,but what did you expect? The OS came out a few days ago!Give it a month and you'll get your drivers. I am sure everyone out there is working on getting them

[Sgt_Strider]

Yah, I actually figured it out-the UAC feature. It's a neat security thing,but not something I would ever use. Took me half an hour to find the turn off button,while exploring the OS. I could've just googled it,but I like to find things myself,this way I remember them forever...

I won't suggest this OS for anyone with less than a Dual core/Core duo cpu.I turned one of my cores off to see if it makes any difference and it sure did.
2 GB RAM is the minimum for Vista. Forget about 1GB. Having 512mb is just stupid. You'll be running at 30% of your speed,but you can proudly say to your friends what you have installed on your pc... You'll have just enough ram to run a calculator and a notepad.
You get an instance of Photoshop,azureus,media player,firefox and you are up to 1.5GB IDLE. Due to very nice memory management,Vista can use 4+GB or RAM where it most needed,giving you a very nice boost. In XP 2vs4GB would only improve things by about 3-5%.

Maybe what you're saying is true for the 64-bit edition of the OS. I have Vista Business (32-bit) in my ultraportable laptop and I have yet to experience any lag. Then again I'm just using it with Office 2007 and surfing the net and everything is fine. My system also only have 1GB of RAM and again everything seems to be fine.

[chatbox]

From what I've experienced on my thinkpad in the past two days, I'd say that the SuperFetch feature works well with program's whose memory consumption is already cached by Vista. By this, I mean, if you have a program that's already cached into the main memory by SuperFetch's execution prediction, then you'll be fine even if Task Manager is showing you 0MB is Free. However, if you try to load a VMWare's VM that requires something like 1GB of RAM, and it's not already cached by SuperFetch, then you're screwed because Windows will now have to off load some of the cached data from main memory to the page file (like a whole GB of it)...so that 1GB of main memory can be allocated to the VM.

So I think there's a really high cost (time) when you're trying to load something that's not in cache (main memory cache) and it has to be off loaded to page file.

[mlerner]

I also have to agree with the ram usage, I have 2 GB and sometimes that's not even enough. I'd really like to know how to disable superfetch because it's a super hog if you ask me.

[Sgt_Strider]

From what I've experienced on my thinkpad in the past two days, I'd say that the SuperFetch feature works well with program's whose memory consumption is already cached by Vista. By this, I mean, if you have a program that's already cached into the main memory by SuperFetch's execution prediction, then you'll be fine even if Task Manager is showing you 0MB is Free. However, if you try to load a VMWare's VM that requires something like 1GB of RAM, and it's not already cached by SuperFetch, then you're screwed because Windows will now have to off load some of the cached data from main memory to the page file (like a whole GB of it)...so that 1GB of main memory can be allocated to the VM.

So I think there's a really high cost (time) when you're trying to load something that's not in cache (main memory cache) and it has to be off loaded to page file.

Have you tried using readyboost yet? I have a spare 1GB SD card and I was thinking of just putting it into my internal card reader and see whether I'll gain any extra performance. It's not like I really need it considering everything has been really snappy for me.