B
Brandon
Guest
This is part suggestion, part discussion, part complaint ... (a rant?)
Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit
I've been using Vista for some months now and I have to say I am deeply
unhappy with the OS. I have it running on a Thinkpad T61 (2GHz x 2, 800 MHz
FSB), 4GB RAM, 160 5400 SATA, nVidia NVS140m, etc.
In my first outing I tried Vista 64bit so I could fully utilise all 4GB of
RAM. Yes, while the RAM is available my feeling was that the performance of
the laptop was below that of my previous Acer TM803 with 2GB with XP.
Initially I had issues because of a known broadcast issue with DHCP and
older routers - I could not get Wireless working with DHCP on my Linksys ADSL
router. I did find the registry resolve for this but elected in the mean
time to stop using DHCP as it was simpler (especially when rebuilding, etc).
I would just hate to be a typical consumer user trying to deal with this O/S.
I believe it would be unworkable for users with no technical background.
Apart from the perception of general slow performance I felt beset by issues
where apps., services, browsers, etc, simply stopped responding and had to be
killed off, or worse, the computer had to be restarted.
In terms of restarting the computer, that wasn't pretty either as more often
than not it would fail to shut down properly, and then take an absolute age
to start up again. I've also had issues where the computer wouldn't suspend
or hibernate properly leading me to leave it on full-power mode most of the
time (a laptop ...).
I also seemed to have a lot of problems with dropping wireless connection
that I hadn't previously experienced on Windows XP, and didn't experience
when I later retried XP on this system.
So; it was problems compounded with problems and more problems, and I'm
LIVID at the amount of time I've wasted in front of what should have been a
blisteringly fast laptop. It, along with Vista, and Office 2007, where not a
trivial investment.
Summary:
* Well, it's unstable. Full stop. It might be the apps., but surely
backward compatability is a watchword when rolling out an o/s?
* Perhaps there are driver issues too; but aren't all of the drivers for
64bit certified by Microsoft?
* Superfetch seems to be an issue. It certainly cannot learn anything
useful about my usage patterns if the PC is so unstable I have to keep
rebooting it. I actually felt that 64 bit Vista provided a better user
experience when SuperFetch was disabled. Is part of the problem here that
it's caching native 64bit and WOW libraries on startup thus taking an age to
get going and consuming almost 2GB for cache before I've actually had a
chance to do anything with the computer? [If the kernel worked properly
there probably won't be any need for ReadyBoost.]
* UAC seems to be a big problem for existing applications.
* There seems to be issues in IE where the browser hangs on when it's
waiting on something (eg: network response or content rendering or something).
Windows Vista Ultimate 32 bit
Having failed miserably with 64 bit I went back to 32 bit. This required
that I gave away 1GB of RAM but appeared otherwise to be a little more
stable. I still have problems with:
* Some applications failing to start/respond.
* Shutdown/suspend/hibernate issues.
There's also some silly bugs in some of the apps. for example:
* Attemping to burn a AVI file to DVD with Windows DVD maker; gets to 79.9%
and then just sits forever with no progress, no discernable error, etc. Who
tested this stuff?
* If I try to use Windows Backup to backup to a disk which I previously used
for a backup and then reformatted (same name), it still insists there are
files backed up on the drive ...
In general, my experience with Vista seems to be summarized by
wait-wait-retry-kill-retry-reboot-power-off-restart-wait-wait.
WHAT DO I WANT:
* I spent a lot of money on the hardware and software. The combination DOES
NOT LIVE UP TO THE PROMISE. I want a working FAST and STABLE system.
* I want some level of granular control over the operation of the ReadyBoost
and SuperFetch features as well as an easy way to identify and stop
components in the system I don't need (which properly explains them, what
they do and what the impact is of turning them off).
* There are virtually no 64 bit applications for 64 bit Vista. Why can't
you just allow 32 bit Vista to access > 4GB on systems that allow this? I've
read lot's of forums about PAE/3GB/36bit/40bit addressing etc. This would
allow for a leaner O/S which could still access larger amounts of RAM though
limiting individual process address spaces; I think most people wouldn't have
a problem with that. Works in Windows 32bit Servers - why not for Vista?
RIGHT NOW:
I'm trying out Linux distributions to see which ones come with the best h/w
support for my T61. If MicroSoft can't get a handle on Vista then I will be
an ex-customer.
----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.
http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/co...941&dg=microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit
I've been using Vista for some months now and I have to say I am deeply
unhappy with the OS. I have it running on a Thinkpad T61 (2GHz x 2, 800 MHz
FSB), 4GB RAM, 160 5400 SATA, nVidia NVS140m, etc.
In my first outing I tried Vista 64bit so I could fully utilise all 4GB of
RAM. Yes, while the RAM is available my feeling was that the performance of
the laptop was below that of my previous Acer TM803 with 2GB with XP.
Initially I had issues because of a known broadcast issue with DHCP and
older routers - I could not get Wireless working with DHCP on my Linksys ADSL
router. I did find the registry resolve for this but elected in the mean
time to stop using DHCP as it was simpler (especially when rebuilding, etc).
I would just hate to be a typical consumer user trying to deal with this O/S.
I believe it would be unworkable for users with no technical background.
Apart from the perception of general slow performance I felt beset by issues
where apps., services, browsers, etc, simply stopped responding and had to be
killed off, or worse, the computer had to be restarted.
In terms of restarting the computer, that wasn't pretty either as more often
than not it would fail to shut down properly, and then take an absolute age
to start up again. I've also had issues where the computer wouldn't suspend
or hibernate properly leading me to leave it on full-power mode most of the
time (a laptop ...).
I also seemed to have a lot of problems with dropping wireless connection
that I hadn't previously experienced on Windows XP, and didn't experience
when I later retried XP on this system.
So; it was problems compounded with problems and more problems, and I'm
LIVID at the amount of time I've wasted in front of what should have been a
blisteringly fast laptop. It, along with Vista, and Office 2007, where not a
trivial investment.
Summary:
* Well, it's unstable. Full stop. It might be the apps., but surely
backward compatability is a watchword when rolling out an o/s?
* Perhaps there are driver issues too; but aren't all of the drivers for
64bit certified by Microsoft?
* Superfetch seems to be an issue. It certainly cannot learn anything
useful about my usage patterns if the PC is so unstable I have to keep
rebooting it. I actually felt that 64 bit Vista provided a better user
experience when SuperFetch was disabled. Is part of the problem here that
it's caching native 64bit and WOW libraries on startup thus taking an age to
get going and consuming almost 2GB for cache before I've actually had a
chance to do anything with the computer? [If the kernel worked properly
there probably won't be any need for ReadyBoost.]
* UAC seems to be a big problem for existing applications.
* There seems to be issues in IE where the browser hangs on when it's
waiting on something (eg: network response or content rendering or something).
Windows Vista Ultimate 32 bit
Having failed miserably with 64 bit I went back to 32 bit. This required
that I gave away 1GB of RAM but appeared otherwise to be a little more
stable. I still have problems with:
* Some applications failing to start/respond.
* Shutdown/suspend/hibernate issues.
There's also some silly bugs in some of the apps. for example:
* Attemping to burn a AVI file to DVD with Windows DVD maker; gets to 79.9%
and then just sits forever with no progress, no discernable error, etc. Who
tested this stuff?
* If I try to use Windows Backup to backup to a disk which I previously used
for a backup and then reformatted (same name), it still insists there are
files backed up on the drive ...
In general, my experience with Vista seems to be summarized by
wait-wait-retry-kill-retry-reboot-power-off-restart-wait-wait.
WHAT DO I WANT:
* I spent a lot of money on the hardware and software. The combination DOES
NOT LIVE UP TO THE PROMISE. I want a working FAST and STABLE system.
* I want some level of granular control over the operation of the ReadyBoost
and SuperFetch features as well as an easy way to identify and stop
components in the system I don't need (which properly explains them, what
they do and what the impact is of turning them off).
* There are virtually no 64 bit applications for 64 bit Vista. Why can't
you just allow 32 bit Vista to access > 4GB on systems that allow this? I've
read lot's of forums about PAE/3GB/36bit/40bit addressing etc. This would
allow for a leaner O/S which could still access larger amounts of RAM though
limiting individual process address spaces; I think most people wouldn't have
a problem with that. Works in Windows 32bit Servers - why not for Vista?
RIGHT NOW:
I'm trying out Linux distributions to see which ones come with the best h/w
support for my T61. If MicroSoft can't get a handle on Vista then I will be
an ex-customer.
----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.
http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/co...941&dg=microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
