|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Links not working... (Reply to this comment)
by nad_masters
Hmm... seems like links aren't working. I have updated the Media Center part of the review, and it included links, but it doesn't seem to work correctly (read and check it out!).
Any mods here who can fix it? I use the usual [a href="url here"]description of link[/a] (replace [] with the proper markup characters), but it just didn't work right.
Oh well... for those who are wondering why it looks messed up, that is why.
Thanks for reading, and keep the comments rolling. :)
|
Oct 10 '07
8:41 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Thanks for the review (Reply to this comment)
by nad_masters
My review was written when the drivers were still immature. Perhaps they have gotten better. I hear that the latest nVidia drivers are now performing very close to XP's.
As for the slow copy issue, I am not the only one:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&hs=j6M&q=vista slow copy&btnG=Search
There is a hotfix, but it doesn't help everyone.
The "fix" is suppose to be due in SP1.
We shouldn't have to "tweak" anything to get copying files and browsing network resources to seem like they locked up the OS while copying/browsing.
I have Vista Ultimate on my desktop (trial) and Home Premium on my laptop (OEM full), and they both exhibit the same issues - so no, it is not just my hardware.
Also tried out Vista on several test machines ranging from P4s to Core 2 Duos.
Oh, and not to mention that my gaming rig is no slouch still, and that these slow issues shouldn't even happen on a P4-2.8 GHz PC let alone my OCed 3800 (OCed to 2.5 GHz).
|
Sep 14 '07
7:23 pm PDT
|
|
Thanks for the review (Reply to this comment)
by gooberpyle
Your "Ready for the Masses" section is way off base.
1. Battlefield 2 runs perfectly fine on Vista.
2. I just bought a year old Nvidia card. Installed with no problem, works great on Vista and Battlefield 2.
3. Office 2003 Excel,Word, & Access work fine.
I/O Performance?
Off base as well.
Network browsing is fine.
Your own settings are probably causing the problem with disk I/O. Try disabling indexing.
Video playback is fine also. No problems.
Vista is not inefficient with I/O?
Cleaning your temporary files, deleting old hibernation files,dumpfiles,etc and then defragmenting the harddrive go a long way toward speeding up a sluggish system.
Your cpu
A 2.0ghz dual core isn't exactly a speed demon these days.
For starters, unless your software is written to utilize the multiple core environment, single or dual means very little.
|
Aug 24 '07
2:06 pm PDT
|
|
reason to wait. (Reply to this comment)
by jlockley
Good information.
I purchased XP64 some time ago with the promise of a (time sensitive) Vista upgrade. As it turned out Microsoft would not honor the upgrade - it was impossible to reach anyone or get through the web site - so the vendor from whom I purchased the computer sent a new Vista CD.
I seem to be doing all right with XP64, with the exception of drivers, which are not yet ready for Vista and will, at least in the case of Palm, not be provided for XP, so I have decided not to fix what isn't broken until it inevitably does. This revue strengthens that resolve.
I an say that older versions of some graphics software does not work with 64 bit systems, and that many peripherals, which I would not consider particularly old - scanners, printers, etc - will not work with a 64 bit system and will not be receiving drivers for either the 64 or 32 bit OS. Video cards in particular are an issue.
All versions of Vista require more memory and fatter video than previous systems..something to be considered. That means that a system upgrade will possibly mean hardware as well as software investment. Those who still use a dial up modem (where broadband is not available, for instance, or for telephony) will find that there is only one dial up modem (now perhaps a couple more) on the market for any Vista System.
All this means that upgrading to Vista, 64 or 32 bit
|
Aug 12 '07
3:49 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Good review... (Reply to this comment)
by nad_masters
Oh, and for the COM Surrogate problem, read this:
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/fix-for-com-surrogate-has-stopped-working-error-in-vista/
I've noticed this problem during Vista's teething months. Sounds like incompatible video or audio codecs.
|
Aug 09 '07
7:08 am PDT
|
|
Re: Good review... (Reply to this comment)
by nad_masters
Righto - I am not here to scare people away from Vista - those problems listed are for the select few. For example, I notice the problems with Vista not finding a suitable hard drive to install are usually on nF4 motherboards with multiple hard drives.
Also, Steam and BF2 was paid more attention to with compatibility than BF2142.
I am hoping by now there are less reported issues because of more mature drivers and perhaps some of the patches for Vista fixes some compatibility issues.
|
Aug 09 '07
7:05 am PDT
|
|
Good review... (Reply to this comment)
by dougb541
But mileage varies I am afraid. I've been running vista since it came out, my specs include:
Pentium D 3.0ghz
1 gig ram
nVIDIA Geforce 7600 (overclocked a bit).
2 150 gig harddrives running in RAID 0.
I have had no video performance issue, nor have my games caused me any issues (battlefield 2 and Most Steam based games).
The issues I have ran into is Com surrgate always giving me an error message and iTunes quicktime seem to not like vista too much.
Otherwise, I haven't noticed the hitches you have noticed yet.
|
Jul 24 '07
10:07 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Nice review... (Reply to this comment)
by mkp51
I actually did read your review carefully, noting that you spoke only of Office 2000 and later. Which is why I spoke of "anecdotal history of compatibility issues..." with earlier versions.
In my opinion, the issue of Microsoft no longer supporting a particular earlier version of their software is a non-starter of an argument. The fact is, the software is out there and in wide use. (One of my employers - a nation-wide retailer - has three computers in its local office, each running a pre-XP version of Windows and versions of Office ranging from Office 95 to 2003.) People have an expectation (created my Microsoft's advertising and PR departments) that their applications will work from within Vista. To my knowledge, Microsoft has made no claims to the contrary; in fact they have (allegedly) provided a "backwards compatibility" mode for older software. Therefore, if the applications don't work properly, people have a legitimate complaint. How they resolve that complaint is up to them; my solution was to purchase Office 2007 H&S, which works fine under both Vista and XP.
mkp51
|
Jul 08 '07
7:34 am PDT
|
|
Re: Nice review... (Reply to this comment)
by nad_masters
I think you didn't read my article carefully.
"So far all of Microsoft Office (tested with 2000 to 2007) runs under Vista without any issues. On a side note, because Office 2007 now have a new file format, there is a "compatibility add-on" you can download that allows Office 2000, XP, and 2003 to open and save to the new Office 2007 XML file format."
I never mentioned any of the non-supported versions of Office were tested. (Office 97 and below are no longer being updated and supported by Microsoft).
|
Jul 06 '07
11:43 pm PDT
|
|
Nice review... (Reply to this comment)
by mkp51
...although I disagree with your analysis in almost all respects. (Obviously I am not anywhere near as computer savvy as you appear to be.) One statement you make I must taker issue with: in my experience, NOT all versions of Microsoft Office work well from within Vista. I own a copy of MS Office Professional 97, and I had a lot of problems getting it to run. Word and Excel work fine, but Access is an absolute no-go.
I upgraded to Office 2007 H&S anyway, and I reverted back to XP, so it's not an issue any longer. But at least one early version of Office does have at least an anecdotal history of Vista compatibility issues.
mkp51
|
Jul 01 '07
10:36 am PDT
|
|
Re: I am stuggling! (Reply to this comment)
by nad_masters
Is that cool little feature worth all the troubles? :) That's the question you have to ask yourself before you do the upgrade.
Thanks for the comment!
|
Jun 11 '07
11:10 am PDT
|
|
I am stuggling! (Reply to this comment)
by ltrain
Vista is really working me out...can't use my old software most of the time, can't really get my settings the way I want them, etc. I'm not impressed by the little tab previews either. One cool thing: the weather gadget you referenced can be run in multiple instances for different cities at once (where I am, where I'm from, where my family is)
Good post, keep 'em coming!
|
May 25 '07
4:41 am PDT
|
|
Actually in my reviews of Vista (Reply to this comment)
by dragon1,  in Software
I did recommend if they were satisfied with their current OS to stay with it. I also gave some tips on installing. I also said people should check that if they have a OEM PC to check the manufacturer site for Vista drivers.
Even the upgrade DVD can do a clean install-just actually takes 2 installs.
Mike/dragon1
|
May 14 '07
10:59 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Very nicely (Reply to this comment)
by nad_masters
Thanks, Susie!
|
May 14 '07
8:07 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: : .Actually after I replaced the nForce 2 chipset (Reply to this comment)
by nad_masters
I read her article - and unfortunately being a harden tech geek, I feel no sympathy. It is a story I would expect from someone who considers herself a non-technical person. Although she did more than your average person to prepare herself, she fell into the Microsoft hype instead of doing some research (nothing hardcore - just Google some articles or pick up some computer magazines with Vista-related articles).
Vista is still too new so new users will be frustrated when there is no appearent Vista driver available (though as I said, WinXP/2003 drivers usually still works).
Plus, she was UPGRADING, which makes the experience even worse (definitely read the articles on this - there are lots of warnings from journalists who have tried both upgrading and full install).
Taking 6 hours is normal for an upgrade progress. A fresh install takes around 30 min on the same computer. Slower PCs are known to take up to 12 hours to upgrade! A fresh install for those PCs will then only take an hour.
The upgrade advisor is not perfect, but it helps. As she found out, it didn't even see the iTunes she had (which at the time did not work well with Vista).
Again, as I said in my review, you are better off waiting a year for the bugs to be ironed out if you are not an enthusiast who can fix problems on their own. You are better off purchasing a new computer with Vista already pre-installed (in a year). If your PC is powerful enough for Vista, but you have XP, stick with XP a little longer.
Vista is flashy, but XP still gets the job done.
|
May 14 '07
8:06 am PDT
|
|
Very nicely (Reply to this comment)
by susiewho
detailed
|
Apr 26 '07
4:46 pm PDT
|
|
If you need edit boot loader (Reply to this comment)
by dragon1, in Software
try this
http://neosmart.net/dl.php?id=1
Makes it easier.
Mike/dragon1
|
Apr 17 '07
2:32 pm PDT
|
|
Re: : .Actually after I replaced the nForce 2 chipset (Reply to this comment)
by dragon1, in Software
Actually it looks like her network and sound were onboard versions-so I would say it has to do with system(chipset) drivers. Here's her review
http://www.epinions.com/content_321036652164
You said in your review"Make an image of your hard drive after you install and activate Vista. The reason why is because if you ever need to re-install Vista, you will also need to re-activate. This means you will have to call Microsoft's hotline. However, since it's been activated before, you cannot activate it again unless you talk to someone live to help you."
Now when I moved my copy of Ultimate from my old pc to my new one- I did have to call and talk to a live person to activate it.
Now recently because of buggy driver and not being able to get the system to work correctly. I had to reinstall this weekend. It automatically activated with no problems for me.
Since I now have Vista working the way I want I will be backing up a image(which I can do with Ultimate)just so I don't have to install all the stuff again.
Mike/dragon1
|
Apr 16 '07
8:02 am PDT
|
|
Nice review. (Reply to this comment)
by Gr8ful,  in Software
Thanks for the review, it's nice to see some positive opinion of Vista for a change. I too haven't had much luck with my version of Vista on the site. I have yet to find Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit edition anywhere on the site for review (plenty of them in the "related deals" list though).
I have had issues with drivers more than hardware. My Radeon X1950 Pro runs terrible for some games, crashing or freezing and then just fine with others. The error report always mentions the driver R300 (which is the Radeon driver) either getting stuck in an infinite loop or resetting itself. When it resets, sometimes you can continue playing for a short time but eventually it will freeze or go to a black screen.
I have also had issues with my HighPoint RocketRAID PCI card. They currently do not have a Vista 64-bit driver, only the 32-bit version which does not work. The Windows XP 64-bit driver works but is not digitally signed and Windows Vista won't load it unless you disable forcing of signed drivers.
If you do that, it works but if you need to boot into safe mode or VGA mode, you can't do it because Windows will only start when you chose to disable forcing of signed drivers, which doesn't then give you the option of same mode or anything else.
I like Vista, but I am disappointed in these manufacturers that have had beta versions to work with for a very long time and still don't have reliable drivers.
Gr8ful ;-)
|
Apr 16 '07
5:44 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: .Actually after I replaced the nForce 2 chipset (Reply to this comment)
by nad_masters
Hmmm... what hardware has he/she found incompatible? Are you talking bare-bones computer hardware (chipset, video, ide/sata controller, sound, NIC, etc?), or peripherals (printers, scanners, etc).
I can see some manufacturers of peripherals may not care to make Vista drivers for products they deem too old or discontinue, but I don't see any computer configuration that may be so bad that it won't even let Vista install (with a reasonable spec).
Just for Shxx and Giggles, I installed it on a P3-1GHz with 512 MB of RAM and a GeForce FX5200 AGP - still installed and with Aero Glass. It actually ran pretty decent. However, some applications do load much slower (such as trying to install Adobe Acrobat, since it requires that long "optimization" step before it actually installs).
|
Apr 15 '07
10:39 pm PDT
|
|
Re: .Actually after I replaced the nForce 2 chipset (Reply to this comment)
by dragon1, in Software
mother board with a nForce 3 250GB chipset-(after Feb of 06) I had no trouble also. But there are people who like kristinafh(epinions author) who will install Vista but do not really know about hardware and will try to upgrade to Vista with incompatible hardware, then blame MS when they don't get a good install.
Mike/dragon1
|
Apr 15 '07
6:15 pm PDT
|
|
. (Reply to this comment)
by nad_masters
Thanks for reading, rating, and commenting. dragon1, I didn't have any problems with any of the hardware I had with Vista compatibility. It all comes down to drivers. When I was beta testing, I was able to get all of my devices to work with Vista with either Vista-specific drivers or 2003/XP versions.
Though I forgot to mention I had a problem trying to connect to a shared printer (HP Laserjet 2200). The newest driver for Windows Server 2003 was installed, since the host was a Win2k3 Server. However, when you try to connect to the printer, it tries to use the driver that was installed on the host. This causes the print spooler to crash. After using the all-mighty Google, I found that others had the same problem, and all it took was replacing a DLL or INI file with a modified version. After replacing this file (on the host machine), double-clicking on the printer in Network Neighborhood (or Vista's equivalent) connected to the printer.
Other than that, hardware compatibility with Vista isn't really a huge issue. The hardware I listed (video cards and the X-Fi sound card) are the only major complaints I have. Even the chipsets I have works great with Vista (nForce 4 AMD series and ATI Radeon Xpress 200M for Turion).
|
Apr 15 '07
5:10 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Very good review but (Reply to this comment)
by dragon1, in Software
Yea we all noticed this during beta testing. We did not like it but MS said there were too many other things that needed fixing and that it MAY be fixed with SP1.
Mike/dragon1
|
Apr 15 '07
1:59 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Very good review but (Reply to this comment)
by nc10
I and other Beta Testers have suggested that with SP1(for Vista)Media Center (Full Screen) does not capture focus of the pointer as it does now.
That was an annoying problem with XP Media Center, also. Kinda defeats the whole point of "Windows".
|
Apr 15 '07
12:53 pm PDT
|
|
Very good review but (Reply to this comment)
by dragon1, in Software
You mentioned about software compatiblity but said nothing about hardware compatibility. Even if a computer will run XP, it may not run Vista. You need Vista compatiblity in the hardware from the bios(motherboard) to TV Tuner cards.
Also with Vista Premium/Ultimate, both Media Player and Media Center will play DVD Movies. I use Media Player for the movies this way with 2 monitors, I'm still able to do other things on the 2nd screen. I and other Beta Testers have suggested that with SP1(for Vista)Media Center (Full Screen) does not capture focus of the pointer as it does now.
Mike/dragon1
|
Apr 15 '07
11:15 am PDT
|
|
.. (Reply to this comment)
by nc10
I've been waiting for Epinions to put in Windows vista as a product, but again, their search failed me yet again.
Epinions has not added any new product to software for more than 6 months. This listing was added by SAP, which is your only option.
|
Apr 15 '07
4:55 am PDT
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.