Vista 64 takes 4 hours to install/then runs like a dog

[mikesgroovin]

We agree on something Apokalipse? Thats a first, quick Trotter take a screen shot!

Yea, I really don't mean to hijack the thread or derail it... it's just that.. even if you KNEW NOTHING about the OS and you had this many problems trying to install it. And you had clear and good, stable functional alternatives (assuming that DX10 isn't "needed" for whatever espeed wants to use an OS for), wouldn't you start to think that this OS "may not" be the wisest choice?

 

[Redmo0n]

I'm just defending what i know, and my personal experience.

Vista is great.

 

[Wildside]

that is the problem there why it takes so long for Vista to install.

You are using an IDE DVD drive, not SATA. IDE has a bandwidth of 164Mb/s where as SATA has 1.5GB/s or 3.0GB/s. When i switch over to SATA, i could install Vista Ultimate 32-bit within 30 mins instead of an hour or so with IDE. BIG BIG DIFFERENCE N RECOMMEND A SATA DVD DRIVE!!!!

EDIT:

Vista is great btw, i love it much better then XP. Performance issues? Pfft, that's why i got that AMD Fusion beta utility. Helps me so much in gaming. Now the biggest con i have with Vista is the lack of driver support for my sound card, it constantly goes out because of heat or just by itself.

 

[Apokalipse]

that is the problem there why it takes so long for Vista to install.

You are using an IDE DVD drive, not SATA. IDE has a bandwidth of 164Mb/s where as SATA has 1.5GB/s or 3.0GB/s. When i switch over to SATA, i could install Vista Ultimate 32-bit within 30 mins instead of an hour or so with IDE. BIG BIG DIFFERENCE N RECOMMEND A SATA DVD DRIVE!!!!

the speed which it can actually read from the disk is nowhere near 164MB/s (even 15K RPM hard drives have a hard time getting that high transfer rates)

Vista is great btw, i love it much better then XP. Performance issues? Pfft, that's why i got that AMD Fusion beta utility. Helps me so much in gaming. Now the biggest con i have with Vista is the lack of driver support for my sound card, it constantly goes out because of heat or just by itself.

XP is faster overall on the same hardware. Especially with hardware that isn't particularly fast.

 

[carnageX]

the speed which it can actually read from the disk is nowhere near 164MB/s (even 15K RPM hard drives have a hard time getting that high transfer rates)
XP is faster overall on the same hardware. Especially with hardware that isn't particularly fast.

Could technically same the same thing for hardware that's good for Win98, but is terrible for XP. Move forward with technology.

 

[Wildside]

well idk, i mean im just speaking from experience Apok, my SATA DVD drive is a lot faster when it comes to installing games and reinstalling Vista so many times even though it has less cache, about 512kb from 2mb like my IDE DVD drive.

err u didnt have to be so true about XP being faster . Everyone is so optimized comfortable to stay with XP than Vista because it's is newer and requires twice the resources, which isnt a big deal in my position.

 

[mikesgroovin]

Twice the resources that could possibly have to be removed just to install a service pack and then placed back in? That sounds user friendly to me. It's not a headache for me... nor you. But what about my grandmother ... or someone like my grandmother? This OS targets those types of users with limited knowledge about PCs. Sorry, but if my grandmother ever called me over to fix a computer and I found out that her operating system couldn't be upgraded until she removed a stick of RAM, I would rip that OS out.

 

[Digital_Jedi]

That strange about the slow install.... I upgraed XP Pro to Vista Business 32-bit and it took only an hour or so to install.

 

[NightSurge]

However, do we not remember when XP was the worst thing ever? Are you so quick to forget all the issues and headaches that came with XP, Dr. IP? It took 2 service packs to fix XP. That's correct. 2.

How many service packs have been released for Vista? 1.

Vista in my opinion and experience on hundreds of different components shows it to be a very viable platform. It does have some issues with certain configurations, no doubt, but as my experience with over 300+ XP installations and configurations, XP had just as many issues.

Also, I have the exact opposite experience with XP x64 and Vista 64bit. On XP x64, all the applications run incredibly slow and many I can't seem to find driver support for. Installed Vista 64bit and works like a charm

 

[Apokalipse]

Could technically same the same thing for hardware that's good for Win98, but is terrible for XP. Move forward with technology.

Actually, XP can run on almost any machine 98 can (I've used both as full-time OS's)
But even then, XP is a far more secure and far more stable OS than 98. The improvement is like night and day.

well idk, i mean im just speaking from experience Apok, my SATA DVD drive is a lot faster when it comes to installing games and reinstalling Vista so many times even though it has less cache, about 512kb from 2mb like my IDE DVD drive.

I've used SATA and IDE DVD drives before, too. I didn't notice a difference.
In fact, I moved back to IDE for my DVD burner (though that was mainly so that I could use the extra SATA port for another hard drive)
I'd probably say the design of the drive itself, rather than the interface, has a far bigger effect.

err u didnt have to be so true about XP being faster . Everyone is so optimized comfortable to stay with XP than Vista because it's is newer and requires twice the resources, which isnt a big deal in my position.

If XP was unstable and insecure compared to Vista as 98 was to XP, I'd agree.

However, do we not remember when XP was the worst thing ever?

I was using 98 as a full-time OS before XP. What I remember was that I had way more problems with 98 than I ever had with XP, even without service packs.

Networking, for example, was horrible on 98. USB support was almost nonexistent. Memory leaks and program crashes often brought the entire system down (probably by far the biggest issue). It was hardly secure.
XP was drastically better in those areas alone.

I'd call NT 5.x the best OS kernel Microsoft has made.

Right now I'm running XP x64 with SP2 + updates. All my hardware has drivers (though I've also heard but haven't confirmed that Vista drivers can work on it), it runs as fast or faster than XP (depending on whether you're using 32-bit or 64-bit programs), faster than Vista (and yes I've used Vista, both 32-bit and 64-bit), and all my programs run on it.