Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Operating Systems Software Upgrades

Quirks and Tips For Upgrading To Vista 236

Posted by kdawson
from the clean-but-safe dept.
jcatcw writes "Computerworld's Scot Finnie has some advice for those considering an upgrade to Vista. He praises the work Microsoft has done on the installation program, but thinks it still presents problems for those who wish to upgrade. He recommends the free Windows Vista Upgrade Adviser. Then, be sure to pick the best edition for your use." From the article: "Don't bother wiping your hard disk. Just run the in-place upgrade from your previous installation. You'll be given the option to perform either an Upgrade or Custom (advanced) installation. Opt for the Custom install to clean-install Vista, and Windows Vista Setup does something smart: It creates a folder called Windows.old in your root directory that contains your old Documents and Settings, Program Files and Windows folders. (Note that on my test machine, this added step used an additional 7GB of disk storage.)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Quirks and Tips For Upgrading To Vista

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @02:46PM (#18418651)
    why would anyone disable a perfectly good computer?
    • Windows Vista Setup does something smart

    • by cshark (673578)
      well said. The whole problem with upgrading to vista is well, living with vista. The only operating system that's ever made me want to throw a perfectly good laptop out the window.
  • by mastershake_phd (1050150) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @02:47PM (#18418677) Homepage
    The upgrade adviser requires .NET to download both .NET and the upgrade adviser is about 28 MB. Twice the size of a Windows 3.1 install just to scan your hardware and tell you if its up to spec.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @02:58PM (#18418821)
      I need a downgrade advisor. Like most of America, I do not need 80% of the functionality of Vista, but I do need its enhanced reliability.

      How can I uninstall 80% of Vista after I have installed it on my 128-megabyte Pentium-II system?

      I am 63 years young, and I use my computer only for e-mail and Yahoo! chat.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        but I do need its enhanced reliability
        what makes you think Vista is more reliable? all trolling aside, you cant guage the reliability of anything until it's been on the market for a while.
        • Re:Downgrade Advisor (Score:5, Informative)

          by VertigoAce (257771) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @04:27PM (#18420367)
          It's funny that you should mention this, since Vista includes a new Reliability Monitor that helps you visualize the reliability of your system. It keeps track of the success/failure of installs, application crashes, hardware problems, and Windows crashes.

          For example, my computer [tinypic.com] has not had any serious reliability issues since Vista RTM was installed in mid-January. Furthermore, the application crashes includes programs you write yourself, so developers will have to pay more attention to the details than the chart.

          This combined with a few other diagnostic improvements should make it easier to help family and friends that complain of computer problems but can't describe what is happening.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Yoooder (1038520)
        If you are serious that you only use your computer for chat and email, then you _really_ should consider Ubuntu Linux. At least give it a try from the CD (you don't need to even touch your harddrive contents until you decide that you really want to install it). Booting from the CD gives you the entire OS, you can add/remove applications and use it like a normal OS. The only downside is running from a CD is inheritly slow--but seriously, save yourself several hundreds of dollars (or even into the thousand
        • by CastrTroy (595695)
          Why are people so obsessed with Ubuntu? I've tried it out many times, and every time I'm disappointed. I like Mandriva much better. Using EasyURPMI you can install just about any application available for Linux at the click of a mouse. It's also dead easy to install and works with a wide variety of software. I really don't get what people see in Ubuntu. Please tell me what it is.
          • by COMON$ (806135) * on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @04:22PM (#18420273) Journal
            must be a hundred posts exactly like yours a day. Let me simplify the argument so you don't start one again.

            I don't know why people use (insert distro here) I use (insert distro here) and it works great for anyone because (insert distro here) is so easy to use why would anyone use anything else?

            To which you will get flaming littleman replies and people will hurl insults left and right as if you insulted their mom.

            This argument is carried on with Chevy vs Ford, Catholics vs Protestant, Athiest vs Gnostic, Crunchy vs smooth peanut butter and on and on.

            People have opinions, they like to stick to them like a religion, get used to it.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by rtb61 (674572)
            People currently like Ubuntu, because they currently like Ubuntu. I like Ubuntu at this time, I am still running two different versions of Suse on other computers.

            If I was running a server and wanted to contract out the admin, I would probably go with Red Hat, because you can currently in Australia get a larger range of contractors with the skills to properly administer it.

            Believe it or not it is all penguin cool, freedom of choice and all that stuff. So Ubuntu, is currently winning in the Linux desktop

      • by rucs_hack (784150)
        Buy a Mac.

        Seriously, sounds like that's more what you need.
      • How can I uninstall 80% of Vista after I have installed it on my 128-megabyte Pentium-II system?

        I am 63 years young, and I use my computer only for e-mail and Yahoo! chat.


        Wow you must be really talented, as Vista is locked to not install with only 128mb of RAM.

        I guess MS decided they didn't want 1000s of support calls like yours.
  • by nietsch (112711) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @02:49PM (#18418687) Homepage Journal
    download.ubuntu.org
    Maybe you could get some spare change for that piece of paper with a holy number on it if you sell it on ebay.
  • In one word (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @02:49PM (#18418703)
    Advice for those considering upgrading to Vista: DON'T!

    You'll get it soon enough with a new machine. Why put yourself through hell now?
    • You'll get it soon enough with a new machine.

      And you won't want it. Got the cheapest possible Dell desktop last week, except I bumped it up to 1GB RAM. It runs Vista Home Basic.

      Holy crap what a pig! It's visibly sluggish - w/1GB of RAM. I'm seriously thinking about wiping it and installing XP. Apparently 4GB really is the sweet spot [slashdot.org]. Or at least, 1GB really really isn't.

  • Print version (Score:5, Informative)

    by PIPBoy3000 (619296) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @02:50PM (#18418719)
    Here's the relatively ad-free all-in-one-page print version [computerworld.com].
  • by digitaldc (879047) * on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @02:50PM (#18418721)
    Some Vista Vs. XP info:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista /page11.html#conclusion_ko_for_windows_vista [tomshardware.com]

    "Overall, applications performed as expected, or executed slightly slower than under Windows XP."
    • by brunascle (994197)
      Maximum PC got the same results an issue or two ago: you'll take a performance hit if you move from XP to Vista. they said the story might change when newer drives come out, though.
      • So let me get this straight...you are trying to tell me that you can make Vista run faster then XP by throwing more hardware at it? How is that a reason to get Vista? Just put that upgraded hardware on XP and let Vista wallow in it's bloatedness.
  • Not this time (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dnoyeb (547705) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @02:51PM (#18418729) Homepage Journal
    I have a strong feeling I will never upgrade to windows Vista. Only thing I need windows for is playing Eve-online. If they force me, i will let them know their game is costing me $200+ which will piss me off.

    I can't believe 'home' editions can not fax or scan. must be a misprint. Surely since MS is trying to be all 'lifestyles' like everyone else these days. and scan is no different from camera.
    • by tero (39203)
      Hey, in that case you can soon dump your Windows.
      CCP announced they'll be releasing EVE clients for Linux and Mac soon (though they're done with co-op with TransGaming, so probably Wine based instead of native, but getting a fully supported Linux client is always something).
    • Re:Not this time (Score:5, Informative)

      by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @03:23PM (#18419147)
      I can't believe 'home' editions can not fax or scan. must be a misprint. Surely since MS is trying to be all 'lifestyles' like everyone else these days. and scan is no different from camera.

      I'm assuming they're referring to using the built-in Windows Image Acquisition service for scanning and whatever the appropriate fax service is. In which case, I won't miss it. Chances are your scanner or fax/modem has drivers and/or software which handles all of this without using the less-functional built-in Windows abilities...
      • "I'm assuming they're referring to using the built-in Windows Image Acquisition service for scanning and whatever the appropriate fax service is. In which case, I won't miss it. Chances are your scanner or fax/modem has drivers and/or software which handles all of this without using the less-functional built-in Windows abilities..."

        The truth is many scanners still exist who's drivers are not updated anymore and Windows image acquisition service was the only way to scan things. I thought itwas a godsend for
    • I mean eventually you'll want a new game maybe. I think their big card-up-the-sleeve is Direct X. If I recall new versions will not be supported on XP/et al. Combine that with the fact that 99.9% of all new PC's are already bundled to, meaning the user base will increase as people purchase shiny new hardware, and game publishers suddenly need to support it (like it or not). There you have it.

      I mean you could keep using XP (which, at least so far, I like *a lot* better). But most people will just bite the
    • You bring up a good point though. I'm a gamer and now that I'm considering buying a new computer it looks like I will be forced to get Vista on it. And since graphics are somewhat important to me, if I want DX10, I need Vista (thanks a ton MS). So what version do people recommend? I should mention I also use my computer to connect to my HDTV and play pirated videos on it. Want to make sure that that function still works and not sure how Vista's DRM will affect divx torrents I download.

      • by Macthorpe (960048)
        I went for Home Premium and it seems to work fine for me. Also, Vista will only degrade performance on videos with DRM on them. As long as they haven't (and if you're torrenting them there's no reason why there should be), it won't touch them.

        Since I've had mine I've been watching Scrubs pretty much non-stop on a similar set-up with video files I personally ripped off DVD, and I've had no issues.
    • I can't believe 'home' editions can not fax or scan. must be a misprint.

      Skip the home version. Go to Ubuntu instead. It works just fine with my Cannon scanner. I haven't tried to send a fax yet, but photocoping and scanning are simple. The range of save options is much greater in the Gimp than anything I have ever seen in any Windows application.

  • by nuzak (959558) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @02:52PM (#18418739) Journal
    "Don't bother

    Works for me

    • I thought it was "Don't bother...switch"
    • by crabpeople (720852) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @03:25PM (#18419187) Journal
      This seems to be the popular sentiment, but you will have to eventually. The CIO of my company decides to install vista on his machine. I am responsible for backing up, virus scanning, etc. I took a look at vista and was completely lost. At that moment I knew that if I didnt want to play the fool, I'd better learn this shit. Its an alien feeling to me to sit infront of a machine at work and not instantly know how to do everything. I didn't like that feeling.

      I didnt do anything crazy like install it at home (2k 4ever), but I did install it on my main work pc. To tell you the truth, aside from the fact that there are no drivers and many programs no longer work, its not that different from xp. You have to turn all the crap off, change the folders back to classic, etc. After that it pretty much operates like winxp and win2k. Is it worth upgrading a working XP copy? Hell no! Is it worth learning about so that your comfortable? Hell yes.

      If you had asked me a month ago if I planned to move to vista I would have laughed circles around you. Well m$ wins again i suppose. Its not all bad though. I rather enjoy "windows mail" the OE replacement. They have moved away from database based (pst/dbx) mail stores and now just dump raw EML files in directories (THANK YOU!!). Its also quite a bit faster than oe and sending and recieving mail. Infact if there was a standalone version, I would probably consider running it on my home machine. It even has a calander so I could finaly move people away from outlook. There is no way we would deploy it across the organization, but its nice to know in 5 years we wont have to have outlook on the machines.

      If you fix computers, you will have to learn it eventually. Theres no use delaying the inevitable.

      • by Kelbear (870538)
        Did you know that support for Hotmail was discarded in Windows Mail? I had a good laugh at that. My various hotmail accounts are what I give out online to receive all the spam from web-registration.

        I upgraded to Vista with a similar intent. It was just 10 bucks for shipping to use the Dell upgrade coupon on my laptop and I wanted to take a look at Vista for myself, I'm probably going to have to confront it sooner or later. It's working pretty much just like XP right now, just a different path to get where I
      • by COMON$ (806135) *
        (2k 4ever),

        Ahhh one of THOSE techs. remember all the win98 4ever geeks....sigh good times.

        I installed it (Vista) here at work just yesterday, sure enough some things broke, but on my machine (only a year old) I have only had to install one driver. My AD management tools were fixed with a quick script, Trillian was fixed after I adjusted the quicktime settings, couple printer issues (print server only had NT4 &2K drivers). I am up and running now, only took me one working day roughly. I had a lit

      • To tell you the truth, aside from the fact that there are no drivers and many programs no longer work, its not that different from xp

        So let me get this straight. Other than the fact that at least some of your hardware and your apps won't work, it's just like XP. Uh no, it's not like XP, because by staying with XP all the software and hardware I've installed will still work, and I won't have to go change to classic views, and I won't have to spend the months until SP1 comes out chewing my fingernails won

      • by drsmithy (35869)

        I didnt do anything crazy like install it at home (2k 4ever), but I did install it on my main work pc.

        Yeah, I remember luddites like you from the 80s (DOS 4ever !) and 90s (Windows 3.1 4ever!). You're the guys whose first act on an XP system is to turn off the new-style Start Menu, despite it being superior in basically every way to the "Classic" Start Menu. Terrified of anything different.

        To tell you the truth, aside from the fact that there are no drivers and many programs no longer work, its not th

      • by rtb61 (674572)
        Now you have a real problem, M$ have categorically stated that they will upgrade windows and office every two years. Why would you waste time learning Vista if you are just going to be forced to learn the new MS OS in two years time. Surely it makes sence to try and skip as many upgrades as possible and save yourself the lost time of learning new stuff just to profit M$ or throwing away money for an OS that will only last two years.

        Win2kpro still runs everything (7 years and counting), in fact more than X

      • Is it worth upgrading a working XP copy? Hell no! Is it worth learning about so that your comfortable? Hell yes.

        This was my arguement exactly for upgrading to Ubuntu. The XP machine is still an XP machine, but the Windows 98 machines and 2000 machine are converted.

        If you had asked me a month ago if I planned to move to vista I would have laughed circles around you.
        If you had asked me 6 months ago if I planned to move to Ubuntu I would have laughed circles around you.

        I rather enjoy "windows mail" the OE rep
    • Don't bother (Score:3, Insightful)

      As I was reading TFA [computerworld.com] I followed this link to an article about the new GUI [computerworld.com] complete with screenshots.

      After viewing the screenshots I've determined that most of the new features in Vista are a rehash of the same graphical tools that sysadmins have been using for years--except now they're brushed up with Apple polish and included on mass market consumer m0dels. The vast majority of the population won't ever care about or use them. The desktop seems to be the MS edition of Sun's Looking Glass whose capabiliti
  • by Steve--Balllmer (1070854) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @02:55PM (#18418775)
    buying the most expensive, costliest version there is. In fact, buy 2 or 3. Vista is just that good. Regards, Steve Bal... uh I mean, Eve Kalmer (damn... forgot to log in as AC.)
    • Um Steve Bal.. um Eve,

      I may get modded informative, but you don't have to log in as AC to post AC.

      See the little checkbox right over the Preview and Submit buttons?
      Try checking the one marked "Post Anonymously"
  • Quick! (Score:4, Funny)

    by jeevesbond (1066726) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @02:58PM (#18418813) Homepage

    Tag this 'slownewsday'

    What is this pro-Microsoft peice doing on Slashdot?! There's nothing slamming Vista, nothing on DRM, there isn't even a flying chair or mention of upgrading to Ubuntu instead. I'm disgusted!

    From the artice:

    I tested Microsoft's way of handling that exact situation, and it works fine.

    What?! 'Works fine', isn't this sort of language explicitly disallowed by the Slashdot terms of service? I also did a search of the article and there's not a single instance of the string: 'Linux'.

    • by Kadin2048 (468275) <[slashdot.kadin] [at] [xoxy.net]> on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @03:32PM (#18419301) Homepage Journal
      I figured this was just here, because it's been a feature of Mac OS in virtually every version since 10.2, released 2002 IIRC.

      It's called "Archive and Install," and it did exactly what's being described. It moved the old system into a folder and then installed a fresh copy on the root level of the HD.

      To be honest, I'm rather surprised if this is the first time Windows has offered such a feature. Given the seeming regularity with which Windows seems to like being reinstalled it seems like a no-brainer. How many focus groups did it take them to come up with this?
      • by swillden (191260) *

        I figured this was just here, because it's been a feature of Mac OS in virtually every version since 10.2, released 2002 IIRC.

        And, of course, Debian Linux (and perhaps others) has done one step better for a decade -- why move all your documents and files into an "old stuff" folder? Debian just leaves all your files in place and upgrades the system components.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          OS X has both. They have an 'upgrade' path where it will leave all your files in place and upgrade system components. They also have an "Archive and Install" which is somewhere in between an upgrade and a full clean install.

          I usually do the "Archive and Install" just so that everything gets wiped. However maybe I'll forget to backup my httpd.conf or some other small config file. I usually run for a month and then delete the "Archived" folder. All the programs I installed but never used, everything goes and
          • Old MacOs let you keep how many versions you liked in the same partition, as each resided in a separate system folder. You could run the same app keeping the same prefs on different versions. For years installing or moving apps was simple as moving it, or its folder, around. Almost any app could use multiple profiles because opening a preference file, residing anywhere, launched the app with the chosen prefs.

            no wonder first time i saw win98 installing on the hd he saw fit without asking me to choose, and re
      • by sparkz (146432)
        I'm not exactly the biggest MS Fanboy going, but I'm sure that Win95 did this when you reinstalled it on top of itself (or upgraded 95 to 98, later on).

        So - big up to MS for a feature they wrote at least 12 years ago!
    • Waiting for someone to mod you "troll". 1...2...3...
    • What is this pro-Microsoft peice doing on Slashdot?! There's nothing slamming Vista, nothing on DRM, there isn't even a flying chair or mention of upgrading to Ubuntu instead. I'm disgusted!

      Maybe it is not in the article, but for your enjoyment most of it is in the comments here.
  • On the other hand (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Z00L00K (682162) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @02:59PM (#18418837) Homepage
    By doing a clean install of an operating system you will get rid of all junk files and junk data that tends to accumulate over time and degrade the performance of the system.

    Personally I allocate a partition that's purely dedicated to operating system and software. So in case the OS does a real *uck-up* I won't lose all data and I only have to re-install. The only thing that I'm annoyed with is the "Documents and Settings" directory that is allocated on the OS partition, and I really would like to have the option of reallocating that beast to a different partition.

    But of course - you can do it the M$ way and allocate everything in a huge partition and when shit happens you aren't up shit creek, you are up the mother of all shit rivers instead...

    A yearly re-installation of Windows seems to be the frequency for me to keep things stable and performing.

    • by geekoid (135745)
      Here at work all the document and setting duirectories are mapped to the network .

      "If you right click and hold it while dragging the folder onto the second hard drives Icon, when you let go of the button a menu should pop up with a few options on it. One of these options is [i]MOVE HERE[/i]. When you click that option it will move all previous content and all future content to the second hard drive."
    • The only thing that I'm annoyed with is the "Documents and Settings" directory that is allocated on the OS partition, and I really would like to have the option of reallocating that beast to a different partition.
      There's a registry setting somewhere that allows you to change this. It's hidden well, but it does exist. A quick google reveals an even simpler method here [microsoft.com].
    • by danpsmith (922127)

      Personally I allocate a partition that's purely dedicated to operating system and software. So in case the OS does a real *uck-up* I won't lose all data and I only have to re-install. The only thing that I'm annoyed with is the "Documents and Settings" directory that is allocated on the OS partition, and I really would like to have the option of reallocating that beast to a different partition.

      Yep, I used to too, and you are right. This USED to work great. That's until I bought a new Windows box with Win

      • by Blakey Rat (99501)
        Although Windows certainly isn't perfect, shame on you for installing an OS with no backup in place!

        Backup your data! Backup! Backup! Back! Up!

        Especially before doing anything involving disk partitions (like installing an OS).
    • by vux984 (928602)
      The only thing that I'm annoyed with is the "Documents and Settings" directory that is allocated on the OS partition, and I really would like to have the option of reallocating that beast to a different partition.

      There are actually a couple ways of do this. In a server environment you can have roaming profiles. You can also achieve most of the effect with folder redirection (enough to move 'my documents', and 'application data', and 'desktop') which are the big ones.
      You can even move the whole documents and
    • by gad_zuki! (70830)
      Not only can you move it or change the default paths for desktop, my docs, etc you *should* be doing backups of your stuff. Blaming MS for not out of the box letting you put a profile folder on a different partition is being really really lazy in the FUD department. Not to mention I hope you arent going to put everything on a different partition on the same disk. What happens if that disk dies and you still dont have backups?
    • by dbIII (701233)

      By doing a clean install of an operating system you will get rid of all junk files and junk data that tends to accumulate over time and degrade the performance of the system.

      It appears to be unique to Microsoft operating systems and in my opinion it is a function of the registry more than anything else. It is true that on other systems you can get sometimes get better performance by copying the files off and then copying them back on to a volume to completely get rid of the effect of file fragmentation bu

  • by casualsax3 (875131) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @03:01PM (#18418855)
    This also happened to me when I went from RC2 to Vista Business Final - it made a backup directory which I found nice and incredibly helpful. It really takes a lot of the worry about reinstalling.
  • by duffbeer703 (177751) * on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @03:23PM (#18419153)
    While alot of things get moved to Windows.old, other things don't. Make sure you backup your stuff!

    For example, Firefox bookmarks in are stored an application data folder, which doesn't get moved.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Given the complete and utter riduculousness that is Windows Activation, your best bet is to upgrade to Windows 2000. It seems like Windows downgrades with every release aside from slicker graphics. Windows Activation is also a total insult to the consumer. Think about it - they expect consumers to call in and explain themselves whenever they upgrade or try to (legally!) move their license to another computer. And watch out for the OEM scams where you don't actually get a license to Windows with your new mac
    • Given the complete and utter riduculousness that is Windows Activation, your best bet is to upgrade to Windows 2000.

      I had given that a thought, but hardware support turned out to be an issue. I had a Windows 2K system. Much new transportable hardware is not directly supported and needs driver installs just to use things like thumb drives and presentation remotes. Using your laptop on the road and a client says, take a look at this file.. Plugging the thumb drive brings up Windows is searching for a driv
  • There's a typo in the original article. Should read:

    Don't bother wiping your hard disk. Just run the in-place upgrade from your previous infestation.
  • by HangingChad (677530) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @04:05PM (#18420003) Homepage

    I'm not going to dig on Vista or MSFT. I don't use their products at home or at work, if I can avoid doing so, but that's not a good reason to rip on them or people wanting to try Vista. I'm guessing that the majority of those attempting a Vista upgrade already are aware they have the option to go with Apple or Linux and have a reason for not going that route.

    I'm curious about why those of you doing are putting yourself through the exercise? What's compelling you to try Vista now? As opposed to waiting a few months until the compatibility issues are sorted out or it comes with a new PC? I'm not sure Vista will ever support every video, sound or ethernet card from the beginning of computer time and I'm not sure it's a good use of MSFT's resources to attempt that kind of massive hardware reach back.

    So why now? Is there some feature you really want? Are there games that are Vista only? Or is just techno-lust at this stage? Wanting to be technically proficient in MSFT's latest and greatest? There's no right answer here, I'm really wondering.

    Or did I miss the big rally where everyone filed by the podium where some guy hit you in the forehead while yelling, "The power of Ballmer compels you!" ;)

    • by Pengo (28814)
      Your question seems sincere (unlike most of the 'wtf why would you buy this' trolls).

      I believe there is a psychology behind people who like to 'Early Adopt'. They are risk takers, and people who understand perfectly that the technology won't perform exactly as expected or hoped. These people are more apt to take chances than maybe what other people could be comfortable with. Just because you might have a miserable experience playing with untested and unrefined software, other people get a thrill of bei
      • Just because you might have a miserable experience playing with untested and unrefined software, other people get a thrill of being the first to adapt and enjoy the self education of trying something new.

        On the contrary, I write some of that miserable untested software that provides that unrefined experience for a lot of users. :)

        I'm really wondering what's driving the early adopters this time. It just seems like there are going to be so many short-term changes, many driver compatibility issues and so

    • by Stevecrox (962208)
      My motivations?

      I ran the beta 2 and RC1 and RC2, I enjoyed using vista it was fun to use and while my creative driver sucked but the creative promised a complete driver for jan 30th. Since Everything else installed from the box without me doing anything there really wern't any compatibility issues from my point of view. I tried going back to XP. Somehow it wasnt the easy pleasing expearence it had been. I tried switching to Ubunutu but after a few days I had a strange need to hit the next linux enthusaist I
  • by the_womble (580291) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @04:07PM (#18420029) Homepage Journal
    Do you really expect grannys(or Joe sixpack/whatever we are calling typical users this week) to be able to cope with this. How can they cope with picking from mutiple versions (the comparison grid in the article has 27 rows!), downloading software to check that there hardware is compatible and then the install itself.

    After all this (again according to the article), they may find that the Windows XP software they buy (or already have) will not work on it. They just want to be able to go to a shop, buy software, and know it will work.

    Windows is find for geeks who know it, but the average users is better off with something that works out of the box like MacOS or Ubuntu.
  • My Xperience (Score:5, Informative)

    by Avatar8 (748465) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:50PM (#18421803)
    I just bought a new gaming system a few weeks ago and it arrived last week. I thought I'd give Vista a try.

    Specs: Core 2 Duo E6300, 2GB RAM, dual nVidia 8800 GTS 320Mb in SLI config, Seagate 320GB perpendicular storage SATA HD, ASUS P5N32 SLI mobo.

    Installation was the best part. It asked a few questions and took off. I came back 30 minutes later to the sign-on screen. It went downhill from there.

    I downloaded Vista updates (don't think there were many) which required a reboot. No big deal; reboot is rather quick ( Since I couldn't right click on the desktop to get my display settings, I dug into Control Panel. Looked for Display. Looked for Graphics. Aha, nVidia control panel. Interesting that it installed that. I wanted to extend my desktop to my second monitor. Only the single monitor choice was given. Checked device manager. Both graphics cards detected, but only one monitor. Checked 3D settings. It recognized my PC was SLI capable and recommended enabling it. Sure. "Accept or deny?" Accept. Reboot.

    Back into control panel, nVidia panel. Still only one monitor choice even though I see both monitors now listed. I downloaded the 53Mb nVidia driver file. "Accept or deny?" Accept. (Crap, that Mac commercial is 100% true.) I'm on 15Mb fiber. Throughput was only 400KB/s and took this about five minutes. Installed, reboot.

    Back into the panels. Still only sees one monitor. THAT'S IT!!! I'm done.

    Out comes the XP Pro CD. Wipe the disk. Install.

    I downloaded all 67 updates in less than 2 mins. Installed in about 7 mins.

    Downloaded nVidia 53Mb driver at 1.7MB/s in less than 30secs. Installed. Reboot.

    Right click, properties, settings, extend. Viola! Two 19" LCD monitors working together.

    Downloaded Serive Pack 2 in one minute and installed in about 10 minutes.

    No mas Vista. Estupido!

    • Sounds to me like all your problems were due to the current crappy state of nVidia's Vista drivers.

      FWIW, I had pretty much the same experience. The difference being, instead of blaming Vista & going back to XP, I took out the nVidia card and put in an ATi card instead. No more problems, both monitors available, and Vista works as expected. I'll wait a few months before putting the nVidia card back in again.

      The moral is the same - don't rush to install Vista. But do put the blame where it's due.

    • by GISGEOLOGYGEEK (708023) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @01:12AM (#18425403)
      That's hilarious. Troll much? what a crock o shit.

      I had troubles installing vista (i posted above if you care) I know it can be a hastle, but you are so full of shit. ... I had absolutely no problem getting my dual monitors to work.

      If the UAC system annoys you too much, especially when you've got lots of setup to do ... then TURN IT OFF! ... and turn it back on later when you're just running programs. It's no big deal. You know damn well that the accept / deny's don't happen nearly as often as in the misleading mac commercials.

      With Vista, My download speeds are close to theoretical maximum for my connection. I'm getting 1000 to 1100 KB/s out of a possible 1200 KB/s on Shaw Extreme (Vancouver Canada). On the same hardware and connection with Windows XP I never saw over 300 KB/s. I have no clue why.

      You're really just a troll aren't you? there's no way you could get XP upto SP2 with all patches in 20 minutes. I dont care what your download speed is ... You'd spend longer than that just on reboots.

      So either you're a damn bullshitting troll ... or you really got sucked in to all the anti-vista crap and gave up on the first sign of having to think.

      Way to go!

      • by Avatar8 (748465)
        I'm sorry you fail to believe, but everything I posted is absolutely true.

        Some clarification for you:

        - as someone pointed out, my dual monitor issue may have been with the nVidia driver. That's the hardware I chose, and if Vista doesn't support it correctly, then I choose to move away from Vista.

        - Just as you cannot explain why XP has slow downloads for you, I cannot explain why Vista was slow for me. The one file I noted, latest nVidia 8800 driver, ~53Mb. In Vista with IE7, it capped out at 444KB/s and

    • by Bios_Hakr (68586)
      I'd suggest you check out NLite.

      Copy your WinXP disc to a folder on the hard drive. Download SP2 from the MS site.

      Download and extract (using winrar or 7zip) the drivers from NVIDIA. I have NForce mobo and NV graphics, so I need 2 files.

      Start Nlite. Let it scan your WinXP CD folder.

      Tell it to integrate the service pack.

      Tell it to integrate the drivers folder.

      Finish applying tweaks as desired.

      Burn to CD and install with that. It'll detect your RAID array at install time with no need for a floppy. It'll
  • Funny how simple the upgrade process appears to be isn't it.

    I like vista, I'm glad I upgraded ... but it was hell getting it working.

    I upgraded from XP SP2 Pro to Vista Ultimate, and at the first reboot in the upgrade procedure I always got a BSOD. Nothing got me around it. I removed all unnecessary hardware, made sure my drivers were upto date including the motherboard drivers and bios ... I fiddled with everything, but I always got the same BSOD.

    Searching for the BSOD error message on the internet gave m

Man must shape his tools lest they shape him. -- Arthur R. Miller

Working...