"THE" Vista Reports as written and told by me! Other Vista Discussions Discuss "THE" Vista Reports as written and told by me! in the Windows Vista forums; WinXP does gives gives you the opportunity to load 3rd party SATA or RAID as well. I have never had the need to load any of these drivers, so I ...

[felix8406]

WinXP does gives gives you the opportunity to load 3rd party SATA or RAID as well. I have never had the need to load any of these drivers, so I don't know if it freezes like Vista. Apparently it's an issue that should be reported to Microsoft. By the way, had you guys heard anything concerning RC2?

[crabby]

Just that it comes after RC1 I haven't heard of any interim builds being released after RC1 so far :| I guess they have taken their foot off the gas for a bit. Fair play to them really, RC1 is giving us enough to talk about right now

crabby

[JoshW02@hotmail.co.uk]

Hi mates as promised here is part two however, I would 1st like to chat about some things that came up last time. Felix8406 told me that Vista's install was good but not fast so therefore I have decided to check this out.

Felix8406: Specs:

CPU: AMD Athlon™ 64 3500+ processor with AMD 64 Technology
(2.2GHz, 2000MHz system bus, 512KB L2 cache)
Chipset: NVIDIA® GeForce® 6100
Memory: 1024MB DDR (2 × 512MB), 400MHz (PC3200), dual-channel
Hard Drive: 200GB (7200rpm, 2MB cache)
Optical Drive: 16x multiformat dual-layer DVD±RW
Media Reader: 9-in-1 media card reader (Memory Stick®, Memory Stick Pro®, MultiMediaCard™, Secure Digital™, CompactFlash®, MicroDrive, SmartMedia, xD, USB 2.0)
Video: NVIDIA® GeForce® 6100 GPU
PCI Express (PCIe x16) slot available
Sound: 6-channel (5.1) high-definition audio

My: SpecsVia Vista's Tools):

Processor: 3.7
RAM: 512= 1.8
Graphics: 1.9
Gaming Graphics: 1.0
Pirmary Hard Disk: 3.7
Base: 1.0

Therefore using this data I have easyly worked out that Felix8406's PC should be the better of the two. My next thing to say is that Vista on my PC seemed a lot faster than XP. (However I plan to officaly time the install in the next week or so). Next, Crabby's post "Anyone else notice that when the install is 'copying windows files' (ie the first step) that it is instantaneous? That bugs me as is obviously a complete lie!" I belive may only be needed for the upgrade optiton (someone correct me if I am mistaken).

Next for 0.01: The Vista Start Menu:
The new Vista start menu is amazing I dont care what anyone wants to say it takes NO getting use to at all. The UAP on the menu is still not right, also why do we still need the word "Start" when hovering over the so called start buttion.However I like the way ALL the shutdown optitons are all here in one place. Lastly not forgetting the search box which is handy.
Till next time! PS: should be less typos!

[felix8406]

Josh, thanks for getting back to us. My PC does run faster under WinXP than on Vista. I did install the x86 version as opposed to the x64 due to driver compatibility. Next week I'm planning to do a complete install of the x64 and see what my performance ratings are.
Concerning the question brought up by Crabby, I didn't really understood the question. Perhaps we can discuss it farther.

[crabby]

When I load my vista dvd it has large time pauses between install screens, that is all... it install fine. This IS an issue with motherboards but I can't figure what the issue is

crabby

[felix8406]

I meant to download my PC performance last night, but something happened to the server. Anyway here is: By the way, I get same performance rating under x86 and x64, no differences.

[crabby]

Well... here is my performance rating... has ANYONE got OC'ing to work in Vista?

crabby

[felix8406]

How r retailers going to deal with the Performance Rating? Will they try to sell a PC wth a rating of say 1 or 2? Will buyers be tempted to buy a PC with a 1 or 2 rating? Will the rating change as the PC gets older, and if not, will the Performance Rating of new PCs keep going higher and higher? And how high can it go?

In my opinion, as the PC gets older, the rating will have to be lower. Here's my reasoning...For the sake of this argument, let's say the max performance rating u can get on any Vista PC is 10. Let's say that I bought a PC six months ago and I get the maximum rating, a perfect 10. What would happen to the person that buys a newer, faster and better quality PC? Everything else being equal, the PC should get a 10, because it's newer annd better than mine. But becuase mine also has a 10, his/her newer PC cannot show that it has a better performance rating....remember for the sake of this argument a 10 rating is the max.
Any thoughts?

[Znod]

Originally Posted by crabby

Anyone else notice that when the install is 'copying windows files' (ie the first step) that it is instantaneous? That bugs me as is obviously a complete lie!

Glad your Vista is finally up and running Josh

crabby

Copying the files is not instantaneous when doing an upgrade as I recall, but I certainly could be recollecting incorrectly.

[felix8406]

I really can't understand what this "copying files" is all about. When I do a clean install of Vista the first item is in fact "Copying" files and it's done very quickly, but then it goes to the next step "Expanding files", or something similar to that. When it's expanding the files, it is expanding those files from the DVD onto the HD. I know because I can hear the DVD running and the light flickering. So apparently, on the first step it copies a "setup" file, I supposed, and then it goes into expanding and installing the rest of the files from the DVD onto the HD.