Vista - What am I missing?

Garp · 16-10-2007, 10:50

My XP install was getting nicely b0rked for various reasons I haven't sussed yet and so as I was going to rebuild the box I figured I'd give Vista a shot (I did identify a memory timing issue during the install which may explain a fair number of the oddities)

So.. Vista Home Ultimate 64bit edition. Nice. Identified almost all my hardware (Audigy2 and Webcam failed).

What am I missing? I know I've approached Vista as a skeptic, but so far all I've seen just re-enforces all I already thought about it. Its just a fancy GUI on top of XP so far as I can see (can't really say I'm impressed with the GUI, compiz / beryl does it better under *nix). Its slower than XP, is more bloated (my old XP install was more than a little bloated but still used less memory & swap than Vista), seems to spend a lot of time hammering the hard disk, looks like swapping a fair bit even with 2Gig of RAM.

I'm going to give it until the weekend to impress me, but to be honest I don't see that happening unless someone can persuade me whatever it is I'm missing that makes folks rave about it?

One thing that really irritated me: Vista doesn't like being installed to the non-primary HDD. Most folks won't notice, but I have an IDE HDD in my box that I use for backups. Vista wouldn't tell me why it couldn't install to the primary partition on my SATA drive, just that no appropriate drives had been found even though it had formatted it. Out of desperation I tried booting the box with the IDE drive unplugged, and lo and behold it would then install happily. XP has its own quirks in that regard but it will install to that partition (just calls it drive d:, unless you remove an IDE device) I would at least have expected Vista to tell me why it couldn't install.

Feek · 16-10-2007, 10:54

If it's swapping with 2Gb RAM then something is wrong. It should be blindingly quick with that sort of memory.

The hard disk hammering will be the initial indexing, after an install it does a full system index for fast searching and that's noticable for a while. Perhaps that's the reason for the disk access you're seeing, not swapping?

If you're thinking it's using the page file because task manager shows 0 (or very low) available RAM then think again because it's using it for pre-caching. You'll be shown the RAM currently in use, the RAM free and the cached RAM. That cached RAM isn't page file. Memory management in Vista is so much better than XP. With XP if you're using 700Mb out of 2Gb, you have 1.3Gb sitting idle, Vista monitors your application use and uses the spare memory to pre-cache the applications it thinks you're going to be using.

Daz · 16-10-2007, 10:57

Vista is very unfriendly when it comes to bootloaders during setup, but then doze always has been.

It really isnt XP under the hood. The network stuff is worse imo (the old school network connections 'folder' is buried under all sort of crap). The event viewer is bloatier, I'm undecided if the new options are worth that odd GUI. The scheduler is much improved, you can schedule things on event triggers now which is handy. Or rather will be with Server 2008.

Dont worry about the disk hammering just now. It'll do it for a but while it's building it's indexes, but settles down eventually.

You're right though, while it's pretty and for Joe end user I think the experience is better, I think it's mostly a sideways step. If you're on XP I dont see a reason to move, but likewise if you're on Vista I dont see any reason to go back either, assuming all your hardware works and your box can handle it.

Admiral Huddy · 16-10-2007, 11:05

I've just bought a new upgreade and will be making the permanent switch to Vista this weekend. I've been toying with the 32 bit version for awhile and haven't come across anything that's a show stopper to be honest.

The only thing I'd like to try is the 64bit version because I've just bought 4gb of RAM. So I might load that on to the workshop PC first. However, I need to clear the 32-bit version that's in dual boot with XP.

How do I remove vista, leaving XP? A straight format isn't going to do the trick, surely the boot loader will need to be changed. Any ideas?

Daz · 16-10-2007, 11:09

Should just be able to delete the Vista partition and re-install XP's bootloader from the recovery console.

Admiral Huddy · 16-10-2007, 11:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daz

Should just be able to delete the Vista partition and re-install XP's bootloader from the recovery console.

Using CHKDSK /r ?

Daz · 16-10-2007, 16:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Admiral Huddy

Using CHKDSK /r ?

Nay, that's just a file system checker. Use fixboot and fixmbr.

Garp · 16-10-2007, 11:19

I've disabled indexing, as I do under XP on first boot, so its not that.

I had Task manager up and was watching the pagefile hit over 2Gig just playing HL2 last night, and physical memory usage peak at around 75% whereas it wouldn't come close to that before.

Will · 16-10-2007, 12:19

I forced windows to install on my primary HDD - so when it came to putting Vista on it just went on there wihtout a problem. I then removed the old xp installation with no hassle.

I'm liking Vista - it is clearly quicker. Everything's rated at 5.0 or above which is why I guess it's quite happy.

Garp · 16-10-2007, 13:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will

I forced windows to install on my primary HDD - so when it came to putting Vista on it just went on there wihtout a problem. I then removed the old xp installation with no hassle.

I'm liking Vista - it is clearly quicker. Everything's rated at 5.0 or above which is why I guess it's quite happy.

Likewise, I get nice high performance scores, but it is definately slower than XP, and significantly slower than the now-getting-bloated Ubuntu.

The only thing that dips me below a 5 on performance index is my CPU, but its no slouch being an X2 3800.

CPU: 4.8
RAM: 5.8
Graphics: 5.9
Gaming Graphics: 5.7
Primary HDD: 5.4

16-10-2007, 10:50	#1
Garp Preparing more tumbleweed Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Hawaii Posts: 6,038	Vista - What am I missing? My XP install was getting nicely b0rked for various reasons I haven't sussed yet and so as I was going to rebuild the box I figured I'd give Vista a shot (I did identify a memory timing issue during the install which may explain a fair number of the oddities) So.. Vista Home Ultimate 64bit edition. Nice. Identified almost all my hardware (Audigy2 and Webcam failed). What am I missing? I know I've approached Vista as a skeptic, but so far all I've seen just re-enforces all I already thought about it. Its just a fancy GUI on top of XP so far as I can see (can't really say I'm impressed with the GUI, compiz / beryl does it better under nix). Its slower than XP, is more bloated (my old XP install was more than a little bloated but still used less memory & swap than Vista), seems to spend a lot of time hammering the hard disk, looks like swapping a fair bit even with 2Gig of RAM. I'm going to give it until the weekend to impress me, but to be honest I don't see that happening unless someone can persuade me whatever it is I'm missing that makes folks rave about it? One thing that really irritated me: Vista doesn't like being installed to the non-primary HDD. Most folks won't notice, but I have an IDE HDD in my box that I use for backups. Vista wouldn't tell me why it couldn't install to the primary partition on my SATA drive, just that no appropriate drives had been found even though it had formatted it. Out of desperation I tried booting the box with the IDE drive unplugged, and lo and behold it would then install happily. XP has its own quirks in that regard but it will install to that partition (just calls it drive d:, unless you remove an IDE device) I would at least have expected Vista to tell me why it couldn't install. __________________ Mal: Define "interesting"? Wash*: "Oh, God, oh, God, we're all gonna die"?

16-10-2007, 10:54	#2
Feek ex SAS Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: JO01ou Posts: 10,062	If it's swapping with 2Gb RAM then something is wrong. It should be blindingly quick with that sort of memory. The hard disk hammering will be the initial indexing, after an install it does a full system index for fast searching and that's noticable for a while. Perhaps that's the reason for the disk access you're seeing, not swapping? If you're thinking it's using the page file because task manager shows 0 (or very low) available RAM then think again because it's using it for pre-caching. You'll be shown the RAM currently in use, the RAM free and the cached RAM. That cached RAM isn't page file. Memory management in Vista is so much better than XP. With XP if you're using 700Mb out of 2Gb, you have 1.3Gb sitting idle, Vista monitors your application use and uses the spare memory to pre-cache the applications it thinks you're going to be using. __________________

16-10-2007, 10:57	#3
Daz The Stig Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Swad! Posts: 10,713	Vista is very unfriendly when it comes to bootloaders during setup, but then doze always has been. It really isnt XP under the hood. The network stuff is worse imo (the old school network connections 'folder' is buried under all sort of crap). The event viewer is bloatier, I'm undecided if the new options are worth that odd GUI. The scheduler is much improved, you can schedule things on event triggers now which is handy. Or rather will be with Server 2008. Dont worry about the disk hammering just now. It'll do it for a but while it's building it's indexes, but settles down eventually. You're right though, while it's pretty and for Joe end user I think the experience is better, I think it's mostly a sideways step. If you're on XP I dont see a reason to move, but likewise if you're on Vista I dont see any reason to go back either, assuming all your hardware works and your box can handle it. __________________ apt-get moo

16-10-2007, 11:05	#4
Admiral Huddy HOMO-Sapien Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Chelmsford Posts: 6,692	I've just bought a new upgreade and will be making the permanent switch to Vista this weekend. I've been toying with the 32 bit version for awhile and haven't come across anything that's a show stopper to be honest. The only thing I'd like to try is the 64bit version because I've just bought 4gb of RAM. So I might load that on to the workshop PC first. However, I need to clear the 32-bit version that's in dual boot with XP. How do I remove vista, leaving XP? A straight format isn't going to do the trick, surely the boot loader will need to be changed. Any ideas? __________________ I just got lost in thought.. It was very unfamiliar territory. Techie Talk \| My gaming Blog \| PC spec \| The Admirals log

16-10-2007, 11:09	#5
Daz The Stig Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Swad! Posts: 10,713	Should just be able to delete the Vista partition and re-install XP's bootloader from the recovery console. __________________ apt-get moo

16-10-2007, 11:19	#8
Garp Preparing more tumbleweed Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Hawaii Posts: 6,038	I've disabled indexing, as I do under XP on first boot, so its not that. I had Task manager up and was watching the pagefile hit over 2Gig just playing HL2 last night, and physical memory usage peak at around 75% whereas it wouldn't come close to that before. __________________ Mal: Define "interesting"? Wash: "Oh, God, oh, God, we're all gonna die"?

16-10-2007, 12:19	#9
Will BBx woz 'ere :P Join Date: Jan 1970 Posts: 2,147,487,208	I forced windows to install on my primary HDD - so when it came to putting Vista on it just went on there wihtout a problem. I then removed the old xp installation with no hassle. I'm liking Vista - it is clearly quicker. Everything's rated at 5.0 or above which is why I guess it's quite happy. __________________ *No No!*

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode