whats is your reason for not swiching to vista?

[=98=]

Thing is, i have about 10 svchost.exe, 5 avast .exe/.dll's, about 7 creative .dll's.

It all runs very quickly and smoothly, that's all that matters :)

[.Gunfire]

JESUS!! :cry: that makes me wanna cry!


I just took a gander at my gaming rig and I counted 8 :p

LEAN AND MEAN BABY!

how and what did you do to get that?

[jesus]

I've got 70 processes when idle :evil:

28% memory usage

[Kreepy Kitteh =^o.O^=]

i did get Vista :p DX-10, gadgets, looks nicer... lets see what happens when SP1 comes out hopefully it will get some slack from the computing comunity..

[solofowaffles]

IM on my dads vista laptop and its using 700 mb of ram while on 2 internet explorer windows.

[sava700]

how and what did you do to get that?

Strip down all the unnessasary services for starters.... I don't run a anti-virus since i'm only gaming, I don't run anything else but a stripped down OS..thats it.

I do however have 5 different computers in my home and each does something different so I do have a slight advantage over most that only have one to do everything on.

[theminx]

recently since i got my new hardware i installed vista 32 and 64
bolth home and ultimate..vista is just not for me ..i find even with the patch the resources it uses i don't like ...600 something megs after i have nearly disabled everything i wont use and something i would have liked to use...
in the end i switched back to xp 64 and added a few things..150 sum megs of ram at desktop now..windows blinds 3d desktop program, some gadgets etc etc...

i tried to install experience mini vista and it does not work, no matter which one i tried..

experience tiny vista is like a quarter of all resources and space of the original vista install, for those of you that don't know....

[Trevortt]

i thought i would create this informational thread so people could post there legitimate reasons for not switching to vista.

my reasons are a follows.

1: i don't like the mass resources it would consume compared to xp.

Vista in my opinion is faster than XP, if you do not like all the crap Vista brings why not remove it? Simple really.

Follow this guide


PS after running various tips & tricks i have aquired over the years i now run a maximum of 30 processes yay.

Driver support is still lacking in my opinion. for 64 bit at least.

It only lacks for hardware that is cheap, for the people who have bought quality hardware ie, xfx, foxconn, nvidia, ati, intel amd creative there is no problems.

Its when peolpe start buying parts from cheap manufacturers who only care about receiving your money rather then despatching hardware that is Vista compatbile.

[megawhompertoo]

It only lacks for hardware that is cheap, for the people who have bought quality hardware ie, xfx, foxconn, nvidia, ati, intel amd creative there is no problems.

Its when peolpe start buying parts from cheap manufacturers who only care about receiving your money rather then despatching hardware that is Vista compatbile.

Meh. This is a gaming forum, and it is true that you can get a satisfactory gaming experience out of Vista, after you buy it, and then by your hardware upgrades, if necessary.

In response to the OP's thread original question:

If you didn't spend $1800 on a PC for the exclusive purpose of running...say...Crysis, then Vista is likely to get in the way. I can't run my palm device on Vista; I can't run my preferred bio-informatics software on Vista; I can't run any of the brand-new (let alone old) scientific instruments in the department I belong to on Vista, my lexmark laserjet at home will not work under Vista.............

................

................

The world has spoken: people who are buying Vista are:

a) Early-adopting gamers with disposable income, or at least gamers with a credit card who can buy enough hardware to run Vista adequately. Nothing in the world wrong with that, beta-testing is a valuable service.

b) Folks who need a new, basic machine to send emails, browse the interwibble, organize recipes, and type in wordpad. Nuttin' wrong with that, either, granny. Promise...just let me pick it out, or hit every last retail pickpocket who offers you an extended warranty over the head with your purse, until you find one who just started working there and isn't a completely heartless sod.

c) PC-tech ignorant people who like to play games and look at PC box-art/DX10 propaganda to decide which PC to buy to run their games on oooberschmackdown high. Nothing wrong with that at all, lots of business models depend on the ready availability of temporary suckers in the general population. In fact, lots of people visit this very forum wondering why their DX10 BFG8500gtocxxtreme edition only gets 4fps, even though it said xxtreme in the model name.

The rest of the world--including the vast majority of gamers--is passing on Vista, as it did with Millenium Edition. I enjoy gaming on my XP system--1600x1200, most of the bells and whistles on high or ultra-high. Vista has the potential to ruin that for me, so why spend money to take chances?

[Trevortt]

Meh. This is a gaming forum,

And, i said it was not, Meh this is the tech area :P

[theminx]

Meh. This is a gaming forum, and it is true that you can get a satisfactory gaming experience out of Vista, after you buy it, and then by your hardware upgrades, if necessary.

In response to the OP's thread original question:

If you didn't spend $1800 on a PC for the exclusive purpose of running...say...Crysis, then Vista is likely to get in the way. I can't run my palm device on Vista; I can't run my preferred bio-informatics software on Vista; I can't run any of the brand-new (let alone old) scientific instruments in the department I belong to on Vista, my lexmark laserjet at home will not work under Vista.............

................

................

The world has spoken: people who are buying Vista are:

a) Early-adopting gamers with disposable income, or at least gamers with a credit card who can buy enough hardware to run Vista adequately. Nothing in the world wrong with that, beta-testing is a valuable service.

b) Folks who need a new, basic machine to send emails, browse the interwibble, organize recipes, and type in wordpad. Nuttin' wrong with that, either, granny. Promise...just let me pick it out, or hit every last retail pickpocket who offers you an extended warranty over the head with your purse, until you find one who just started working there and isn't a completely heartless sod.

c) PC-tech ignorant people who like to play games and look at PC box-art/DX10 propaganda to decide which PC to buy to run their games on oooberschmackdown high. Nothing wrong with that at all, lots of business models depend on the ready availability of temporary suckers in the general population. In fact, lots of people visit this very forum wondering why their DX10 BFG8500gtocxxtreme edition only gets 4fps, even though it said xxtreme in the model name.

The rest of the world--including the vast majority of gamers--is passing on Vista, as it did with Millenium Edition. I enjoy gaming on my XP system--1600x1200, most of the bells and whistles on high or ultra-high. Vista has the potential to ruin that for me, so why spend money to take chances?

all of that reminds me of myself saying this a few pages back or so...
i buy hardware so my games & applications run faster better & cleaner, not so i can power a resource consuming operating system.

vista is simply not worth the resources it consumes
and i got 4 gigs of ram to spare,
i have a quadcore clocked at 3.4 ghz,
i have a better then good system and I'm still not happy.

like i said in my end result vista could not be stripped down to 200 megs or lower in usage and run without crashes or problems like xp can and does..

vista is simply lacking the options to remove massive and unnecessary features and processes so that "gamers" can truly utilize it for what it is ..

(and i have tried the unattended vista lite program that allows you too remove stuff and make it better...STILL NOT EFFICIENT)

[=98=]

Why does it need to be cut down to 200mb. If you have 4gb, your never, ever going to use it all unless your doing some serious desktop processing. May as well let Vista have some of it.

[theminx]

this is true alex..i just feel that vista could have been made with the same resources xp has as default with a faster core..

i mean come on, vista has a faster more stable os,
the core is entirely different and faster no doubt over xp..FOR SURE but,
it could be better for those of us like ME that don't want all that..so that we can be sure our hardware is used for what its intended to do is all..

[=98=]

XP is getting on a bit, and new technology requires more power. The same argument was made when people went from 2000 to XP. They said it was a memory hog and needed to many resources.

But, people need to move forward. By next year, i suspect a lot of people will be using 8gb memory.

[Hellsent 2.0]

IM runnin with 33 Processes...Also what are svchost.exe and stuff liek that..i would like to get down as many as i can...