Vista - Should I take the plunge? [Archive]

DVD Maniac

28th May 2008, 09:55

Ever since Vista came out I am constantly hearing about DRM scares and stories of this OS refusing to work with some of the well known tools common to this and other sites. Last week I helped my girlfriend out buying a new laptop and was unable to find any with XP builds and it seems the days won't be long before I will have to make the plunge to take advantage of some of the newer software coming out / features etc. Also, having now seen the Vista interface plus all the other toys you get i'm toying with taking the plunge. Perhaps those who have can help reduce my worries such as -

1. Any problems with playback of previously working backups of DVD / HD DVD / Blu-Ray?

2. Any issues with decryption, backup / playback tools such as Any DVD, DVD Decrypter?

3. Any instances where Vista blatantly refuses to copy material / play material which would have worked fine on XP?

4. Are the "Vista will secretly track what i'm doing and tell on me" scare stories just hype or do they have any substance?

5. Any clear examples where Vista does stuff XP cannot do / won't do when it comes to DVD / Video / HD DVD / Blu Ray processing (or quicker - ie - decrypting / encoding etc)?

I note many posts here indicate many have ditched XP so I guess i'm worrying for nothing!

Thanks in advance!

dat720

28th May 2008, 13:27

I am running Vista Ultimate and don't experience any issues what so ever (except the usual microsoft making/selling garbage issues).... Vista is fine, i prefer it the UI is much nicer easier and quicker to get around, i have not experienced anything that would make me wish i still had a XP setup, so yes take the plunge.

burfadel

28th May 2008, 15:02

I say take the plunge too, especially if you are purchasing a new computer. Any reasonable new computer can handle Vista just fine! Personally, I'd only get the x64 version as it gives some future proof plus its PROVEN to be faster (and also feels faster too)! I think Microsoft are idiots (more so than the typical person) to be thinking of making a 32 bit version of Windows 7 when it finally comes out, that would be akin to making a 16 bit version of XP, quite literally. x64 unlike XP (which can still run 16 bit apps through a type of emulation layer) can natively run 32 bit apps, which have also been shown to be slightly faster on the same system as the same programme running on 32 bit Windows. Once 64 bit programmes become more common the benefits will even be greater :)

Upgrading to Vista from XP for a computer thats a couple of years old isn't worth it, its only really beneficial on quite recent laptops and desktops. Also at least 2gb of RAM is advisable. 4gb is only really reliably available on x64 vista as x86 is generally limited to 3gb of ram.

DVD Maniac

28th May 2008, 15:38

Thanks for putting my fears at bay - I will take the plunge! Its time I made use of my 64 bit AMD processor (I couldn't be bothered with the hassle of XP 64 bit).

I am assuming most of you go for the OEM versions rather than full retail? I have my own custom system on my main machine and a self built media centre both on XP at the moment. I understand you are only allowed one hardware migration on Vista OEM and then not even the pleading phonecall to MS support works? Or am I wrong on that?

Ajax_Undone

28th May 2008, 18:03

Full retail for me but I get mine free so what can I say... Oh by the way the networnking kinda sucks and the x64 edition can't run PG2 very well...

Vista is a good OS if the Aero UI is not loaded because it sucks resources like I suck milk... 2GB of Ram is recommended but 4 is what I use to keep some resources for my self...

Games run slower... ie I have two ATI Radeon 3850 VC with xcrossfire and 1GB of ram each and still only get 35 FPS in Unreal 2004 and unreal 3... in XP on my other HD I get 480 FPS in Unreal 2004 and 390 fps in unreal 3... Not quite a vista fan yet but we will see eventually...

QuadcoreHD

28th May 2008, 19:20

Gotta agree with Ajax;

While I'm ONLY running two 8800GTX's :P I get significantly slower FPS in some of the games I play when compared to what I got in XP (Crysis for example). Also, Vista is much more annoying about bugging you; for example, every time I turn on my comp it asks me to reinstall the driver for the 8800, even though it has already been installed; and when i click "Don't Install", it starts trying to install it anyway. WHAT IS THAT??????????

JohnnyMalaria

28th May 2008, 19:37

I've been using Vista extensively since Nov 2006 and has been my primary OS for more than a year. I have both 32- and 64-bit versions of Ultimate. Mostly, I've used 32-bit since that's what I have done all my software development on. I spend more time on 64-bit now, though, and have even developed some 64-bit video-related stuff. In a few months, I expect I will be using 64-bit for everything.

I really haven't had any problems with Vista on my 2 year old Gateway desktop (that came with XP MCE). Some legacy apps that aren't Vista savvy sometimes exhibit audio performance issues and this has always been my one reason that I don't recommend Vista for hard-core editing without testing it first.

The only time I fire up XP is if a customer has reported a problem that I cannot reproduce on Vista or I want to test something new to make sure it works on XP.

I can't comment on gaming performance since I don't play any.

dat720

29th May 2008, 00:02

Blue_MiSfit

29th May 2008, 02:04

I use Vista x64 Ultimate, and am very happy with it. Most of the performance related problems have gone away, as drivers have matured. All of my hardware (including my cheapo laser printer, iPhone, my M-Audio USB Audio interface, and my M-Audio USB MIDI Keyboard) works perfectly. I have had -one- blue screen in the last 3 months.

Of course, I have a 3 GHz quad, and 4 GB of RAM.

Lots of RAM is VERY important in Vista. I tried it about a year ago with a slower dual core and 2GB and it was quite slow.

Aero is great. 3d accelerated desktop composition is the only way to go. Why bother with the old interface? It's all organized the same on Aero, but it looks uglier.

Also, disable UAC. Doing so makes the nagging pop-ups go away.

About the only thing I still cant understand with Vista is why they decided to change the way user accounts are organized. It's very confusing.

Anyway - Vista FTW. It's not for everyone, but for me the fluidity of Aero and the ability to wire up all 4GB of my RAM is worth it :)

~MiSfit

Ajax_Undone

30th May 2008, 07:30

Lots of RAM is VERY important in Vista. I tried it about a year ago with a slower dual core and 2GB and it was quite slow.

32 bit has issues with more then 3200MB Of Ram... (It cannot recognise that anymore is installed...) even if you get it to read that much you will never fill it up or use that much cause its a crippling effect of 32bit OSes... (XP 32 has the same issues):rolleyes:

64bit is the way to go and not xp 64 because its worthless on most 32bit software where as Vista is not...:devil:

I love the fact that I can access my user folder immediately from the start menu... Easier for keeping things organized... Hate the display properties windows because they kept the old properties windows with the tabs broken off into separate arias... Sorry that is not streamlining that is crapping out and pure lazy...

And the amount spies built in is dismal to say the least... Damn Customer Experience Program... The one for the OS is the worst because once it pops up you have to select yes before it will allow you to select no.. UGH..

Ok I'm done...

burfadel

30th May 2008, 11:19

The shouldn't be a massive performance drop from XP to Vista, especially not to the extent of 390fps to 35fps (or did you mean 350?)! The important thing is to ensure the settings are the same for both, and not just the setting availalbe the normal way. For Nvidia I recommend using Nhancer and ATI Atitraytools to adjust all the settings not available under the control panel (there's advanced settings available under both, you just have to access them). Its true that they're primarily to automatically adjust the settings depending on the game you load, but you don't need to use this feature of it or have it even running after the global settings are made.

Vista did have problems initially with performance, I take it the systems are now updated and running SP1? Also I take it the latest drivers are being used? for ATI its currently Catalyst 8.6 and for Nvidia its Forceware 175.80 (non offical, you have to get it from somewhere like www.laptopvideo2go.com or www.xfastest.com but they're well worth it)!

There are also many post sp1 updates that may help with performance. These can be download from www.thehotfixshare.net (doesn't have every update, but a large majority). Or sort through the list at http://kbupdate.info
kbupdate.info lists the KB articles as they become available, many of the recent updated ones don't apply to sp1. Its pretty easy to work out though, post sp1 updates don't have a number before 940xxx (some above that are pre sp1 too, thats just a rough suggestion). Many of the updates for server 2008 also apply for Vista. If you're willing, you could sort through the list and look at the file versions being updates, not the intended fix! Sometimes there are later updates that update the same files to earlier versions for some reason. Basically all updated files have a verison number of 6001.>18000! You can then request them by the automatic bot at support.microsoft.com/hotfix/KBHotfix.aspx?kbnum=xxxxxx&kbln=en-us where xxxxxx should be replaced with the kb number (the number only). Note this is http://support and not http://www.support! This will then send you a link to your email to a file that you need to extract and they give you a password.

The benefit of doing this is that a truly fully updated system runs very fast and flawlessly, I have done that myself with no problems! The difference even between a normal updated post sp1 and a fully updated one is such that I am very much looking forward to sp2 already, that should really make up for Vista's shortfalls!

I should point out that Microsoft doesn't recommend doing the above, but I think its worth it!

JohnnyMalaria

30th May 2008, 15:24

The shouldn't be a massive performance drop from XP to Vista, especially not to the extent of 390fps to 35fps (or did you mean 350?)!

Such a drop is common and expected. It affects games and CAD software written for pre-Vista Windows.

One of the reasons that the graphics pipeline was completely overhauled for Vista was to remove many of the unpleasant side effects of high frame rate graphics on XP - the most noticeable being tearing of the image. Vista controls when new frame data can be present to the front buffer.

As with many Vista things, high performance legacy software may not perform as well as on the original platform due to fundamental changes to the underlying audio and graphics. Applications (re)written for Vista will perform much better.

burfadel

30th May 2008, 18:47

Ah ok! I wasn't denying the fact that there may be a performance drop, but when XP is over 11 times faster than Vista it suggests there could be a driver issue or something else. You can still have high frame rates in Vista, much higher than the refresh rate of the monitor unless vertical sync is enabled.

primerump

30th May 2008, 20:30

32 bit has issues with more then 3200MB Of Ram... (It cannot recognise that anymore is installed...) even if you get it to read that much you will never fill it up or use that much cause its a crippling effect of 32bit OSes... (XP 32 has the same issues):rolleyes:

64bit is the way to go and not xp 64 because its worthless on most 32bit software where as Vista is not...:devil:

I love the fact that I can access my user folder immediately from the start menu... Easier for keeping things organized... Hate the display properties windows because they kept the old properties windows with the tabs broken off into separate arias... Sorry that is not streamlining that is crapping out and pure lazy...

And the amount spies built in is dismal to say the least... Damn Customer Experience Program... The one for the OS is the worst because once it pops up you have to select yes before it will allow you to select no.. UGH..

Ok I'm done...

well that's interesting.. my own personal experience of vista x64 is basically "disgusting".. virtually NONE of the common video editing tools will run properly.. most will bomb with the "xxx has stopped working" dialog.. .. I did try XP x64 and it ran almost ALL of my video tools correctly, I even tried a fresh vista install to see if it was just a bad install.. but I got the same results.. very very disappointing... back to XP for me..

QuadcoreHD

30th May 2008, 20:42

@Johnny - sweet man, i was worried for a bit you we're done with doom9 :P

glad that you're in fact, still here :)

burfadel

30th May 2008, 20:59

well that's interesting.. my own personal experience of vista x64 is basically "disgusting".. virtually NONE of the common video editing tools will run properly.. most will bomb with the "xxx has stopped working" dialog.. .. I did try XP x64 and it ran almost ALL of my video tools correctly, I even tried a fresh vista install to see if it was just a bad install.. but I got the same results.. very very disappointing... back to XP for me..

Thats strange, sure it was set up correctly? It sounds as though there was an issue with the codec used to decode the video for editing, and hence causing the problem with all the video-editing programmes. This can be as simple as using a codec pack (which is NOT recommended as they can stuff things up) or other codecs which have compatibility problems. This could even be as simple as running an old version of a particular codec.

Having an old display driver installed (or leaving it with the crappy default Windows one) may also lead to problems due to the way the video-editor renders the video on the screen.

Basically on any Windows, whether it be XP, XP x64, Server 2003, Vista x86, Vista x64, if there's a problem as described above its usually a simple third party issue than can be easily rectified if you know the source of the issue. People have has similar issues with XP if you google it (caused by Codecs etc), so its not a problem unique to Vista or x64.

Yoshiyuki Blade

31st May 2008, 04:22

dat720

31st May 2008, 08:29

I'm with Yoshiyuki Blade, every piece of software i have runs fine on vista, no issues what so ever, no crashes, the only one that is irritating at the moment is the Nokia Software Updater, but that is due to Nokia pulling Vista support in the current release due to their own inability to create software that runs on Vista. Other than that Vista is pretty damn sweet.

There are always problems when a new OS is released no matter who makes it, there will always be incompatible software and hardware, it's a fact of life, and the people that constanly rag on Vista have probably never used it long enough to form a valid opinion.

I worked at a PC shop around the time vista came out and have been using it since about a month before its official release, and have experienced no problems. Some issues that came to light when Vista was released was older software sometimes wouldn't run, old printers generally didn't have drivers, but all of those are 3rd party vendors problems, which were usually solved with a software update or finding another program that acheives the same thing.

And vista has been around in atleast beta form for over 2 years so software devs and hardware vendors had plenty of time to develop for Vista.

Ajax_Undone

31st May 2008, 09:44

wetlegs6

3rd June 2008, 18:03

The only time vista really causes greif is when you don't feed it enough RAM, 2gb or more don't even bother with 1gb if you're going to be video encoding/gaming, processor is not that important, i have vista running happily and smoothly (with aero on) on a P4 3ghz HT machine with 1gb and a AGP ATI 2400Pro, it is not used for anything intense just a spare for the *other* members in the house to browse and email with.

If your brave look at linux :)

I dunno, I played the first F.E.A.R expansion pack (Extraction Point) all the way through on Vista RC2 back in the day on 1Gb of DDR, a socket 939 dual core Athlon64 @ 2.2GHz, and an ATI X1600 Pro (AGP version by Sapphire, significantly underclocked).

dat720

3rd June 2008, 21:55

Theres nothing stopping you from doing it.... but the experience will be soo much better with more ram and a faster processor

Blue_MiSfit

4th June 2008, 21:51

Basically most software issues that occur in Vista are the result of the programs not being fully compliant to the Windows 2000/XP standards. It's like wtf we're in 2008 and programmers continue to use outdated styles. However, it is unfortunate if you really need those programs and the developers aren't willing to comply, but you can't really blame the OS if programmers decided not to use standards have been out for 8 years already.

I use Vista x64 and virtually everything I used on XP works. The only thing you have to worry about are drivers, which have to be pretty OS-specific. However, most of what worked in XP should work in Vista if it was written well.

My x264 encoding methods have not changed since I've switched from XP to Vista 6 months ago, and its friggin awesome with 8 gigs of ram, and a 3 GHz quad. 4 simultaneous encodes (using well over 1GB per instance) while playing WoW on an 8800GTX is quite an experience, and quite power hungry!

Ding!

Like I said, my experience ~1 year ago wasn't positive at all. Throw in SP1, 2-4x the processing power, and 2x the RAM, and it's a whole different world!

I'm a very big fan of running WoW windowed while encoding a BluRay, and talking to folks on Digsby (plus Foobar and Firefox of course), all at the same time. It's silky smooth, with no problems. I can even use the flip3d and everything (WoW at 1920x1200 included) renders in real time, its great :)

I've had almost no compatibility problems at all.. the full Adobe Creative Suite 3 runs _perfectly_. Adobe Lightroom benefits HUGELY for some reason. When I'm working on RAWs, it feels many orders of magnitude faster than it does on XP. Operations like rotation, cropping, or even adjusting curves feels fluid and instantaneous on Vista, while it was quite choppy on XP. I'm thinking desktop composition has something to do with this. Ableton Live runs great - with ReWire to Reason, and VST plugins. my M-Audio keyboard, and E-Mu audio interface work perfectly.

Media Player Classic HC -> Haali Renderer or EVR looks great, no problems there.

All the OSS video encoding apps work wonderfully! MeGUI has a couple of bizarre bugs that are getting ironed out, but they're easy enough to work around. If only squid_80 had more help with 64 bit AviSynth :)

I still like XP plenty... all our work machines run XP Pro or Server 2003, and they're bulletproof. No problems at all.

Vista isn't for everyone. If you've got a high end machine, it will feel very fast, and to me is preferable to XP. If you have a slower machine, XP or 2k will be a much better fit. Heck, I know plenty of folks with high end boxes that stick to XP.

~MiSfit

JohnnyMalaria

4th June 2008, 23:55

FYI, my Vista 64 flies on my Pentium D 2.8GHz + 2GB RAM...and the difference between it and Vista 32 on the same hardware is very noticeable.

burfadel

5th June 2008, 05:06

And the Pentium 4's Em64T extensions aren't as efficient as the Core 2's, just in terms of the performance benefit of 64 bit over 32 bit! Blue_misfit is right though, I'd say if you have an older computer then stick with XP, but for newer computers using Vista x64 would be preferable.

flier

5th June 2008, 21:18

If you don't need a computer right away, Microsoft is coming out with a new system to replace Vista sometime in late 2009 or 2010. It will be called Windows 7. Why get a system that will be replaced within a year or two.

Blue_MiSfit

6th June 2008, 00:05

Well.. thats over a year away :)

~MiSfit

Ajax_Undone

6th June 2008, 04:15

Yoshiyuki Blade

6th June 2008, 05:02

Just buy an AMD Phenom x4 its the only true Quad because it has a Pipeline for all 4 unlike Intel that only has two Pipelines for 4 cores...

As for MS dump it Install Ubuntu and live a Proprietary Free Life...

To the best of my knowledge, Core 2 Quads are still faster in real-world performance per clock despite being 2 dual cores stuck together (though not by too much). The whole "native quad core" thing is just marketing hype by AMD. Core 2 Quads also still overclock much better, for people interested in doing it.

I'd say the majority of people in the computer enthusiast community share the same sentiments about AMD/ATI's current state in high-end/high performance hardware. Come Nehalem, I don't know what's going to happen :eek: Yorkfields are already beasts.

Blue_MiSfit

6th June 2008, 07:07

accidental dupe

Blue_MiSfit

6th June 2008, 07:07

Just buy an AMD Phenom x4 its the only true Quad because it has a Pipeline for all 4 unlike Intel that only has two Pipelines for 4 cores...

As for MS dump it Install Ubuntu and live a Proprietary Free Life...

Yeah... that's cute and all, but guess what, the Core 2 Quad stomps all over the Phenom X4 in just about every single scenario, including performance per watt. Sure, the Phenoms are a little cheaper, but not by much.

Nehalem looks to be an absolute monster, beating even the Core 2 by ~ 25% IPC performance, with some parts launching at 3.6 GHz. It's a sad day to be AMD. It's a sad day to be an enthusiast too, because AMD used to offer a better product (in a lot of cases) for less money. My C2Q is the first Intel box I've ever owned, and that goes back nearly 10 years, about 5 machines, all AMD.

This is an Operating System thread anyway...

Feel free to run Ubuntu, if you're down to deal with all of Linux's issues. It's a good solid operating system. You're out in the cold if you can't run the applications you need to. Sure, there's WINE and Mono and all that good stuff, but it's not exactly easy to get it all working, last I checked.

Me, I prefer to run all my applications in Windows, and not think twice about it. I don't care if Windows is proprietary.

~MiSfit

stesmi

6th June 2008, 12:50

This is an Operating System thread anyway...

Feel free to run Ubuntu, if you're down to deal with all of Linux's issues. It's a good solid operating system. You're out in the cold if you can't run the applications you need to. Sure, there's WINE and Mono and all that good stuff, but it's not exactly easy to get it all working, last I checked.

Me, I prefer to run all my applications in Windows, and not think twice about it. I don't care if Windows is proprietary.

~MiSfit

Note that the same can be said in the other direction. In Linux at least we have Wine that may or may not work for a given Windows program but what do you have that will let you run a Linux program? Bupkis. True, there are more programs for Windows but that's quickly changing.

Your problem is that you cannot run Linux programs in Windows.
My problem is that I may or may not get a given Windows program to run in Linux, but at least I have the possibility to try.

And anyone coming with the 'answer' of VMWare, it exists for both Windows and Linux.

But your last line is good, it's your choice to do or not do something just as it is another person's choice to do or not do something. "Out in the cold" is perhaps a bit far though.

JohnnyMalaria

6th June 2008, 18:20

Note that the same can be said in the other direction. In Linux at least we have Wine that may or may not work for a given Windows program but what do you have that will let you run a Linux program? Bupkis. True, there are more programs for Windows but that's quickly changing.

Your problem is that you cannot run Linux programs in Windows.
My problem is that I may or may not get a given Windows program to run in Linux, but at least I have the possibility to try.

And anyone coming with the 'answer' of VMWare, it exists for both Windows and Linux.

But your last line is good, it's your choice to do or not do something just as it is another person's choice to do or not do something. "Out in the cold" is perhaps a bit far though.

That's all irrelevant and verges on threadjacking/trolling - the OP wants to know the opinions of people with realworld experience of Vista vs XP. Linux, Mac, W2K, W95 etc etc don't come into it.

As is obvious from this thread, there are plenty of people who recommend Vista. I was quite surprised when the first replies came in - asked a year ago, I suspect the majority of the replies would have been to the contrary.

There's barely a negative comment re. "taking the plunge" except for unnecessary intrusions about unrelated OSes.

Now, if the OP wants to answer the question "Linux - Should I take the plunge?" then by all means do.

stesmi

6th June 2008, 22:22

That's all irrelevant and verges on threadjacking/trolling - the OP wants to know the opinions of people with realworld experience of Vista vs XP. Linux, Mac, W2K, W95 etc etc don't come into it.

As is obvious from this thread, there are plenty of people who recommend Vista. I was quite surprised when the first replies came in - asked a year ago, I suspect the majority of the replies would have been to the contrary.

There's barely a negative comment re. "taking the plunge" except for unnecessary intrusions about unrelated OSes.

Now, if the OP wants to answer the question "Linux - Should I take the plunge?" then by all means do.

I agree with what you say and will say no further on that specific subject. I was merely answering what he was writing, which I guess was just an answer to another post and neither of the posts were relevant in the discussion (these parts of them at least).

Mike89

19th June 2008, 07:32

To me the question is do you need to take the plunge, why, and what are you going to get that you don't have now.

For me personally the answers are "no", "dunno", "nothing that interests me". Maybe the OS after Vista will have something I really want and need but at this time Vista just doesn't.

dat720

19th June 2008, 13:58

Vista is better in virtually every way than XP, i would not go back to XP as a everyday OS, Vista is soo much easier smoother and nicer to live with.....

burfadel

19th June 2008, 14:21

People who have used Vista and think XP is better, from my experience, tend to be those that will only buy one type of hardware and nothing else. For example, those that will refuse to buy a HD4870 Radeon even though its potentially much faster than a 9800 (and much cheaper).

Ajax_Undone

24th June 2008, 07:24

The point is can you afford not to. I remember when XP cam out nobody wanted it because it was new and buggy, a lot of over all disgust was displayed about it... Windows 98/2000 was The OS's and Nobody wanted to upgrade. Sad thing is as the hardware evolved so did the software. So in the next 2-3 years windows 2000 will be dropped from the Hardware profile as being supported. Its ten year support cycle will be over from MS and Vista will be at SP2 and 80-90% of everybody who held out will have upgraded and XP sp3 will become the new 2000 with no updates and hardware support will eventually drop for that...

From a techs point of view being as that all Videocards are being made with DX10 and XP Wont install DX10 It will be a substantially shorter time before XP will be dropped on hardware support completely in the next 3-4years...

Strait up I would just donate heavy amounts of money to the reactOS Project and hope they step up the development and release a 1.0 version before the entire world turns x64 bit...

DVD Maniac

24th June 2008, 09:22

The point is can you afford not to. I remember when XP cam out nobody wanted it because it was new and buggy, a lot of over all disgust was displayed about it... Windows 98/2000 was The OS's and Nobody wanted to upgrade. Sad thing is as the hardware evolved so did the software. ...

Well I lept and its turned into a pain in the butt. I decided on a hardware overhaul with an AMD x2, 4MB DDR2 memory (as recommended here!), Gigabyte board with all the bells and whistles plus Vista compatible NVIDIA card.

The first board failed to Post. Board 2 - up and running at last, loaded up Vista x64 with my SCSI Raid array apparantly with no issues. Then all I got was BSOD load errors virtually on every start up. Researching on the hardware / software forums it turns out Vista x64 does not like certain boards with 4GB memory and RAID arrays! (mostly Gigabyte but reports of same issues even on ASUS boards).

How the f&^k can an OS be out for over 6 months and between MS and the most well known of board suppliers this sort of thing happen? 4GB is hardly power user territory and RAID arrays are virtually standard these days!!!!

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :devil::devil::devil:

dat720

24th June 2008, 10:09

1st time i heard about ReactOS, looks like it has potential, very long way to go tho....

dat720

24th June 2008, 10:16

How the f&^k can an OS be out for over 6 months and between MS and the most well known of board suppliers this sort of thing happen? 4GB is hardly power user territory and RAID arrays are virtually standard these days!!!!

I would not say raid array's are standard.... and the problems you experience are nothing to do with Vista, but the driver for the raid array, which the hardware vendor wrote and implemented, microsoft can't be blamed for something a 3rd party company did, i hate microsoft as much as the next guy, but if it wern't for them we would possibly have another mainstream OS which could be worse!!!!!

Could you imagine letting some dumbarse loose in the linux console??

The biggest downfall of unix/linux is it thinks root knows what they are doing!!!

DVD Maniac

24th June 2008, 12:01

I would not say raid array's are standard.... and the problems you experience are nothing to do with Vista, but the driver for the raid array, which the hardware vendor wrote and implemented, microsoft can't be blamed for something a 3rd party company did, i hate microsoft as much as the next guy, but if it wern't for them we would possibly have another mainstream OS which could be worse!!!!!

Could you imagine letting some dumbarse loose in the linux console??

The biggest downfall of unix/linux is it thinks root knows what they are doing!!!

Actually its not the RAID drivers per se. If you strip out a 2mb module everything is fine. The forums I have looked at are reporting this problem with boards with no RAID arrays even attached (even disabled in BIOS!). The root cause is Some MB's + 4MB + Vista doesn't work.

dat720

24th June 2008, 12:15

If that's the case it comes down to a chipset/bios issue with the vista kernal, something the motherboard manufacturer needs to fix, i currently work in IT support (no vista machines yet, still XP) but before this i worked in a PC shop just as vista was launched and for a year sold and supported system's with vista and we never came across these sorts of problems (with asus/gigabyte/intel boards in the bunch) not saying it doesnt exist, but im saying that system's designed for vista and have parts chosen that specificly support vista are fine, microsoft can't be responsible for making their software work with 100% of board's, even linux can't manage it, with a open architecture where driver's/kernals can be patched and modified!

Yoshiyuki Blade

24th June 2008, 12:27

What chipset are you using? Nvidia chipsets have become the pinnacle of crappy chipsets lately, at least on the Intel side of things. But since you're using AMD, its a high likleyhood that its Nvidia. My experience with an Nvidia chipset + AMD CPU have been fair, but it wasn't always quite stable, and this was on XP.

Chipsets are a major cause of hardware headaches, which people often overlook. (Quality power supplies are crucial too, but thats a whole different issue.) If you don't use SLI, there's pretty much no reason not to use an Intel chipset with an Intel CPU... Not to be Intel-biased or anything, but they're just rock solid stable o_o

I'm thinkin that it may be a chipset issue.

dat720

24th June 2008, 13:30

I agree with that, my preious few system's were AMD based and were not the most stable system's this current PC is a intel chipset and is nothing but stable, 4gb RAM Pentium D 3.2GHz, and have had no dram's stability wise, no crashes nothing, even tho it is a old chipset (i945) being pushed pretty hard.

burfadel

24th June 2008, 15:54

Intel need the competition though, it was only really AMD's success performance wise in recent years that gave Intel the kick in the pants it needed. Just unfortunate people didn't give AMD the chance they deserved when they were far superior, the extra profit may have helped with the development of the phenom. The same goes with ATI and the Radeon, there was no doubt which one was the superior, with the 9600 and 9800 going up againt the Geford 5 series.

Kind of ironic Nvidia are using the same model numbers as the Radeon's that kicked their butts 6 or so years ago! Quite honestly, I am intending to buy a Radeon 4870 later in the year, and update to the soon to be released Intel Q9400 processor. The reason why I mention that is it would be foolish to try and use a 4850/4870 Radeon, as it is using a Geforce 9600/9800/9900 on Windows XP, you just won't see the benefit. As I've said before, new hardware = Vista, current or older hardware=XP. Vista=x64, the 32 bit isn't worth it :) Truthfully, all hardware should support x64 now, if they don't, remembering its new hardware, its crap and the manufacturer is either lazy or inept! As far as software goes, all general software works, and the only stuff really to have a problem are crappy system tools.

Laptop manufacturers, or prepackaged computer manufacturers say they may not prefer it simply because they do not distribute the OS disk and use a system image. Its much easier for them to just use one OS. Also there may be some of those useless utilities they provide that work like a driver and have no x64 support, so its easier not to recommend x64 than making the old software (a lot of it is quite old, maybe a few lines changed for vista compatibility) to run on x64.

As long as you have your computer fully updated its fine. This includes SP1 and all subsequent updates (and the 120 or so hotfixes if you're game). That is not an excessive number, XP had about a 1000 or so between sp2 and sp3!

Update directx every couple of months, current 'extensions' dated June 2008, and Net framework 3.5 - its going to be the standard system in a couple of years, get used to it now! You should be fine then[/CENTER]

To recap:
Old computers and recent low end computers, stick with XP. Especially if you have limited RAM and a slow graphics card.

New computers, or recent fast computers, get Vista x64. Its noticeably better than x86 vista and believe me, it is far superior to XP. If you work the computer really hard, XP does still crash even at this stage, Vista just... doesn't!

communist

24th June 2008, 19:54

The biggest downfall of unix/linux is it thinks root knows what they are doing!!!
What the hell?! Thats why you don't work as root but as a normal user and only login as root to do administrative. Even Microsoft is encouraging people and devs to do this - moreso with Vista.

dat720

24th June 2008, 22:34

I realise that, and things are changing now, but i know many people that figured why log in as another user? why not just login as root? and they spread the word to the mates and collegues about how much easier it is if you just login as root!

And the amount of times we have people calling up saying "can you give me admin rights so i can install usb drivers?" is kinda silly and our response usually goes "no, but i can rdp and install the drivers for you!"

Ajax_Undone

24th June 2008, 23:44

ATI Chipset = AMD Works great
Intel Chipset = Intel Works great

Nvidia and Via and other are the bitch children of some poor abused company trying to hold on...

If nvidia really wanted to impress me they would make there own system processors and make a stable combo like AMD and Intel have done vice-versa...

odditory

29th June 2008, 19:03

My opinion - I have 3 x HTPC's in my house, and have been building and perfecting HTPC's for years now, and my choice up until a few months ago was XP media center edition. My initial experience using Vista as the HTPC O/S was like biting into a lemon. When Vista's SP1 update came out I took another look at Vista - fast forward a few months to now and it's my weapon of choice for all three of my HTPC's - I love it: its flowing interface + MyMovies plugin is the pinnacle of cost-effective home theater, and only the Kaleidescape system in my friend's house (over $100,000) can do better.

There's a perfect storm right now for playback of HD sources and one only gets it with an HTPC (not XBOX360, not PS3, not a Linksys/Dlink/whatever "extender"): 1) PowerDVD + Nvidia or ATI card capable of 'accelerating' decoding on GPU, 2) Cheap ($150) BD-ROM drive (LG), 3) AnyDVDHD, 4) Media Center inside Vista (used to hate Vista, but since SP1 its great) + MyMovies plugin.

Having PowerDVD utilize the GPU for accelerating decoding, having ffdshow "upscale" lower res material like XVID/DIVX, every possibly source is handled beautifully with a minimum of codecs (I literally just have PowerDVD Ultra, ffdshow-tryouts and halli media splitter - that's it - F*CK codec packs).

DVD Maniac

30th June 2008, 08:47

Just so long as you don't anticipate using 3GB+ of system memory........

On my 3rd board now and iv'e basically given up trying to get my system stable with 4GB. This is absolutely absurd when one of the boasts of Vista above XP is being able to handle 3GB+ of memory. :devil::devil::devil:

dat720

30th June 2008, 09:35

My old system is a LGA775 Pentium D based vista machine with 3.5gb ram (which has now been retired to Vista Media Centre duties)and it performed flawlessly, never a hang/freeze, and the only programs that ever crashed were poorly written applications.

JohnnyMalaria

30th June 2008, 14:30

dat720

30th June 2008, 22:01

Vista 32bit may not support more than 3.2gb ram, but using over 3.2 certainly does not make it unstable, i've built many systems (at customers request) with 4gb, and at my new job all our new systems from dell (yeah yeah i know tell the Australian government) have 4gb and perform flawlessly (except for the spastics that try their best to break them) once i chock this puppy up with 2 more gb and a QX6600 or something i'll move to vista 64bit.

DVD Maniac

1st July 2008, 08:27

dat720

1st July 2008, 12:46

From memory the last 4gb machine i built was a Intel board with 4x1gb 800mhz DDR2 Rambo brand i think, Q6600 Stock Clock with a 8800GTX and a 550w PSU, we ran it through 10 loops of 3D Mark 03 aswell as a overnight run of prime95 and it was fine, the customer had it for 3 months before i left that shop and he was a regular and always said it was running fine, infact we never had any complaints or issues with any of the 4gb machines we built.

burfadel

1st July 2008, 13:21

Thats really weird, all computers know of that has x64 and 4gb installed run fine! Actually one had 8gb of ram, just for fun (pulled another 4gb out of a system just to try it out). The only issue with Vista, regardless of whether its the x86 and x64 version relating to any installation is the initial installation. If you have multiple drives connected, the RTM Vista may not want to install on the main drive. Temporarily disconnecting some of the other drives will resolve this. I should point out that when I mean RTM Vista, I mean Vista plus any streamlined versions!!! The sp1 does NOT update the installation system for Vista, the only way to get a fully updated installation system is (for the normal person) pay the $15 for the shipment of the alternate media! Apparently even updating the Windows PE (installation) from PE 2.0 to 2.1 (sp1) still leaves some files not updated.

Its strange the problem experience above is with different motherboard manufacturers, I take it they're all recent chipsets? (such as the Intel p35/p45/x38/x48/Nforce 790i etc)? I wouldn't rely on a p965/p975 motherboard in terms of PCI remapping.

Yoshiyuki Blade

1st July 2008, 14:03

I'm using Vista x64. Maybe you are using a "magic" motherboard beacause I have tried 3 (ASUS, Gigabyte, ASRock) and none will handle 4gb properly with all the latest drivers and Vista updates installed. The only way round this is to do all your software installs with 2gb, stabilise everything then power off, load the other 2gb, then let it cycle through about 4 or 5 reboots until it finally loads up then leave it in suspend mode all the time (ie - never power it off!) :devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil:

The brand is secondary in importance of stability compared to the chipset used. ASUS and Gigabyte make great stable boards, but any brand with a crappy chipset will make the whole board crappy :D.

Overall, I'm sorry to see that you're having trouble taking the plunge :(

DVD Maniac

1st July 2008, 16:48

I have stuck with the Asus M3N-HT DELUXE/HDMI NVIDIA nForce 780a SLI board. Usually I find NVIDIA chipsets to be pretty stable in my last 2 boards so I don't think thats the problem. I also rate NVIDIA's driver support to be far better than ATI, much more responsive to known issues etc. I am going to try 2 other brands of memory and then i'm basically going to give up if that does not work.

I have not got the time to waste installing and reinstalling boards and operating systems. :mad::mad::mad::mad:

burfadel

1st July 2008, 17:31

Have you tried the latest bios for that board? The latest bios version 0901 states (direct quote from the Asus website, although I did bold the interesting line!):
0901 BIOS
1.Fix the problem that CrashFree function is abnormal sometimes.
2.Fix the problem that it may takes 4 to 8 times of cold boot to enter OS with Phenom 9850 and 9950 CPUs.
3.Fix the problem that the chassis fan will suddenly stop.

Problem 2 could be a common problem with the chipset or CPU combination, which may make it common across different boards?...

DVD Maniac

1st July 2008, 22:05

Thanks for the idea but yes ive done that already. I am now resigned to stripping out 2mb whenever I need to reboot. :devil::devil::devil:

Blue_MiSfit

3rd July 2008, 02:06

dat720

4th July 2008, 09:25

Thanks for the idea but yes ive done that already. I am now resigned to stripping out 2mb whenever I need to reboot. :devil::devil::devil:

It seriously sound's like some conflicting devices, i would be looking at the ram, using something like memtest86 testing 1 stick at a time, then all stick's, i would also run prime95 overnight just to see if it is stable, if any of those test's fail then you problem is not with windows, try striping the system down to the bare essentials, only 1 hdd no optical drive, remove the video card (if it has onboard) and any other pci/pcie devices that aren't required for it to run.

What ever is happening is not normal and you should find out where the problem is.

We have a pc at work, (intel dual cpu board) with dual xeon 5150's and 8gb memory running vista as a test just to see how fast it is (FRIGGEN FAST!!) and it's rock solid.

DVD Maniac

4th July 2008, 13:24

Yeah... that really really sucks.

I'm sorry you're having such hideous, stupid problems.

The problem lies in your motherboard's integrated RAID controller or its Vista x64 drivers :(

I have 4GB of RAM on a p35 chipset Asus P5K-E, and it's flawless. No RAID, but lots and lots of hard drives ;) I had a Gigabyte DS4 for awhile, which was fantastic too (but a capacitor literally exploded on me ROFL).

All your drivers / BIOS updated? How exactly did you install Vista on the RAID - using the built in driver, or did you load one at setup time with a flash drive etc?

~MiSfit

Well yes I am using an adaptec u320 RAID board in mode 0. Other posts I read mentioned the problem occured with on M/BOARD RAID drivers, not external ones in native RAID mode.

I have been careful to download the latest native driver from adaptec and onto a floppy. I install this at the initial Windows load as an additional driver just like I did in XP. The Vista disc cannot "see" the array otherwise so I assume it doesn't have this driver on the setup disc. How would I do the load after OS install anyway?

I suppose I could try loading the OS onto a single SATA drive and see what happens, although I would not like to loose the use of my RAID board - especially since I can now run it in x64 mode for the first time. Is there a big difference in performance of a SATA drive (300mbps) vs a SCSI 320 on a x64 board?

burfadel

4th July 2008, 18:15

A very important note with SATA, something that most people overlook and are none the wiser:
By default, the bios sets up SATA for 'IDE compatibility mode'. This allows Windows XP to be installed correctly, however it does disable some advanced SATA features (such as NCQ). NCQ with recent drives isn't detrimental to everyday use like it once was. Setting AHCI in the bios also allows for full functionality of performance drivers for the Intel and Nvidia chipsets (drivers neet to be installed separately, and not use the standard .inf driver but the actual .sys driver).

Windows Vista can install fine with AHCI mode since it was designed from the start to be AHCI compliant, unlike XP which has been patched and modded significantly to cope with new hardare. The one WARNING is though, you cannot change freely between AHCI mode and IDE (either IDE enhanced or IDE compatibility mode, both aren't AHCI mode). If you installed in AHCI mode (best mode) and change to the slower IDE performance or IDE compatibility modes, it may still boot fine, but if you change from IDE to AHCI mode, apparently even Vista won't boot, regardless of whether booting in to safe more or not. So once set, leave it! I haven't tested this out myself but its good to heed common advice with this issue! I highly recommend AHCI mode.

Blue_MiSfit

4th July 2008, 20:59

kumi

7th July 2008, 05:51

Sorry to stray a bit off topic:

drivers neet to be installed separately, and not use the standard .inf driver but the actual .sys driver
Do you have any links with further information on this, specifically how to integrate the .sys driver into a Windows XP installation disc? I will be installing XP on a SATA-loaded system soon, and it has no floppy disc.
EDIT: I found instructions for nLite: http://komku.blogspot.com/2007/11/integrate-driver-into-windows.html

unlike XP which has been patched and modded significantly to cope with new hardware.
Do you mean AHCI is problematic on Windows XP, or are you just speaking about hardware compatibility in general?

dat720

7th July 2008, 13:32

Do you mean AHCI is problematic on Windows XP, or are you just speaking about hardware compatibility in general?

Yes it is, i have had system's where you could just plain not install xp with AHCI turned on.

Go Here (http://driverpacks.net/) there is heaps on info on integrating drivers...

Also check out the MSFN (http://www.msfn.org/board/forums.html) forums this would be a much better place to gain info on integrating drivers and slip streaming service packs and stuff, that's where i learned everything i know.

DVD Maniac

7th July 2008, 17:32

Yes. AHCI mode makes a difference, for sure.

As far as SATA vs SCSI - they both have plenty of bandwidth. It all depends on what kind of SCSI array we're talking about here.

One SCSI drive will surely have faster seek times than one SATA drive. Sustained transfer speeds etc will probably be higher as well (assuming 10,000 - 15,000 RPM screamers).

Maybe you should install Vista on a SATA drive, and have the SCSI drives as a secondary? Perhaps the problem lies in trying to boot from the SCSI drive.

Again - did you install Vista using the most recent driver for your SCSI card?

~MiSfit

Yes, all drivers are latest, especially the Adaptec Host drivers. Are you saying it makes a difference loading these up at Vista install stage (ie - straight to the RAID array) as opposed to loading the OS onto a single SATA, then loading the RAID driver and then transferring over to the RAID array via Ghost or similar? Thats just plain riduculous if it is!

As for using my RAID array as a simple "dummy" drive without my OS I just don't see the point - might as well throw away the card and drives!

The whole thing has got me mad now. :devil::devil::devil:

Inventive Software

7th July 2008, 17:44

This is what RAID does to ya! :D Much simpler IMO just to have a massive hard disk, and if you MUST use RAID, use JBOD and back up regularly!

Blue_MiSfit

7th July 2008, 20:25

Are you saying it makes a difference loading these up at Vista install stage (ie - straight to the RAID array) as opposed to loading the OS onto a single SATA, then loading the RAID driver and then transferring over to the RAID array via Ghost or similar? Thats just plain riduculous if it is!

Sort of...

What I'm saying is this:

Assuming you want to install to your SCSI RAID array, it does make a difference whether or not you load the (latest) driver at Vista install stage. It sounds like you're doing this but I want to be clear on this point.

RAID is tricky - especially if drivers aren't perfect. This is one area where Vista x64 has a few problems. It's constantly getting better, and all of my issues have been resolved. However, it sounds like some hardware doesn't play nice :(

Just as a test, try installing to a vanilla SATA drive.

Do you mean AHCI is problematic on Windows XP, or are you just speaking about hardware compatibility in general?

AHCI on XP usually works, provided three things happen:
1) The board is set to AHCI mode
2) You have working AHCI drivers either integrated into the CD or available as a floppy
3) Your XP installation CD is SP2 or greater

I have an integrated CD with SP3 and the Intel ICH9R RAID drivers, which has worked perfectly for me several times. But now I just use Vista x64 and it works out of the box ;) Then again, I'm not using a fancy schmancy SCSI controller with a RAID array. I just have a bunch of SATA drives..

~MiSfit

DVD Maniac

8th July 2008, 08:45

Sort of...

What I'm saying is this:

Assuming you want to install to your SCSI RAID array, it does make a difference whether or not you load the (latest) driver at Vista install stage. It sounds like you're doing this but I want to be clear on this point.

RAID is tricky - especially if drivers aren't perfect. This is one area where Vista x64 has a few problems. It's constantly getting better, and all of my issues have been resolved. However, it sounds like some hardware doesn't play nice :(

Just as a test, try installing to a vanilla SATA drive.

~MiSfit

Well my RAID card is the Adaptec 29320 A U320. Adaptec has 2 drivers for Vista x 64, one for HOST Raid enabled and one for it disabled (why the hell would anyone run a RAID board without the HOST Raid enabled anyway?).

Latest driver for an enabled Host is date stamped 5 Feb 07 which doesn't sound very "up to date" does it? Description is -

"Ultra320 64-bit HostRAID drivers for Windows Vista x64 Edition for the 29320(A) and 39320(A) series cards with HostRAID enabled."

I have copied these files to a floppy and tell Vista to load them during install. Then it finds the array and I do the usual create partition and format step before loading Vista. Everything appears to load just fine (even with 4GB installed) and it cycles 2 or 3 times during the install phase OK. Only when it restarts for the 1st time after a manual reboot do the problems start up. :confused::confused::confused:

dat720

8th July 2008, 13:44

Have you tried contacting the motherboard manufacturer?

DVD Maniac

8th July 2008, 17:07

Have you tried contacting the motherboard manufacturer?

......because I don't want to go insane waiting endlessly for stress inducing responses telling me to do stuff I have already told them I have done like -

update to the latest BIOS
installing the latest chipset drivers

then, on to the next in the script

Turning my computer on and off :mad:
and then onto the final "its not us" stretch statements thus

swearing blind that its probably something else I have attached like a mouse or a scanner etc etc etc etc

There isn't a Z in the month

I have the wrong type of electricty supply

and then having finally, once my annoyance levels boil over, having to release my stress on my keyboard / furniture / girlfriend / cat..........

Been there, done that, got the tee shirt, flip flops and cap

:devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil:

Blue_MiSfit

8th July 2008, 19:43

It's all part of the troubleshooting process - you never know. They may be privy to information you don't have.

I had an issues when XP came out with my Athlon 1.2 GHz system. It had a KT-133A board from DFI. I couldn't install XP! Every time I started loading the CD, the damn system would freeze up. I tested every component, and nothing would make it work.

Finally, I contacted DFI, and they told me - oh yeah - there's a known issue with that specific video card you have (a GeForce 2 MX/400 64mb AGP 4x). So I swapped out video cards to install, and it worked fine. Swapped back and all was well. They later released a BIOS update that fixed the issue. I went through all the same hassle you did, but I got resolution.

I know, I hated it too, but it's all part of a process. They don't know if you have your head screwed on straight until they get the bases covered. :)

~MiSfit

Ajax_Undone

8th July 2008, 21:02

Use vlite integrate the textmode drivers needed install then configure... Easy if the Mother board has issues then contact the manufature tell them the steps you have already gone through and say that you want a REPLACEMENT if they cannot help any further.. Most mother boards have a 3 year manufacture warranty against flaws in design and workmanship.. Which case a MB that does not operate because of a chipset problem seems to fit in to that category... Had a month ago a problem with a set of intel boards that would not take there raid 0 setup and it used a promise raid controller they replaced every one of them... Had to pay for shipping but in comparison to a $250USD/pMB it was worth it...

dat720

9th July 2008, 01:33

Been there, done that, got the tee shirt, flip flops and cap

:devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil:

Yes they can be anoying sometimes, but it maybe the only solution for you!

If i was having this much trouble with a motherboard i would have returned it to the shop i bought it from by now! it is obviously a faulty product, it does not work as advertised, if it has a vista support logo on it then it's false advertising, the product does not work the way it was intended!!!

It sound's like your trying to beat a dead horse! do some research find a raid chipset that works with vista happily and go with that one!

DVD Maniac

9th July 2008, 08:58

Yes they can be anoying sometimes, but it maybe the only solution for you!

If i was having this much trouble with a motherboard i would have returned it to the shop i bought it from by now! it is obviously a faulty product, it does not work as advertised, if it has a vista support logo on it then it's false advertising, the product does not work the way it was intended!!!

It sound's like your trying to beat a dead horse! do some research find a raid chipset that works with vista happily and go with that one!

If only it was that simple! I'm on my 3rd board now so this is obviously a conflict with Vista+4GB+my Adaptec 29320 card. I have eliminated the memory by trying 3 other brands. I have yet to try an install on a single SATA drive but I reckon that will work just fine.

I could of course opt to use the onboard SATA Raid on my ASUS board but I don't think this will perform as well as my U320 SCSI array as this is on a true x64 bit controller. If anyone can tell me that an onboard SATA array will perform as well (or close to) a U320 SCSI array then i'll go that route.

In the meantime I've emailed Adaptec support. Normally they are pretty good and don't waste your time with rubbish suggestions. Abit/Gigabyte/ASUS and pretty much all Motherboard suppliers support is hopeless which is why i am not going to wate my time on that one.

dat720

9th July 2008, 13:50

Oh sorry, i must had misread your earlier post's i thought the issue was with the motherboard and it's onboard raid, not a seperate Raid controller.....

Looks like you are at the mercy of Adaptec then.

If anyone can tell me that an onboard SATA array will perform as well (or close to) a U320 SCSI array then i'll go that route.

It depends entirely on the disc's in use i guess.

PS looking around google shows that the problem is not limited to windows, linux is also affected, so it must be a issue with the raid card + 4gb, just a query but have you tested this card under XP 64bit with 4gb ram?