|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
DonMarco
graphics fucker
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:32 pm |
  |
|
| km wrote: |
Vista hasn't prompted me for anything after I went into User Accounts via the control panel and disabled UAC. You did reboot, right?
If you're talking about Security Center, there's an option on the bottom of the list on the left side of the screen that says "Change how security center alerts me" or something. Click the link and there should be checkboxes to turn off the alerts. Same as in XP.
You might get a balloon tip about windows updates, if you've set it to notify you when those are available. If you don't want that, er, turn off update notification. Same as in XP.
If it's something else I don't know what to tell you. |
After you've done this, make sure you restart your computer. Not just power down to hibernate or sleep. (My Dad did this.)
_________________
Still alive. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
DonMarco
graphics fucker
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 2:17 am |
|
|
| GcDiaz wrote: |
| What about vista SP1? Doesn't that make the difference? I'm deciding whether to go with Vista or XP Pro for my new build. |
I just recently (day 5 now) jumped on the Vista train.
In fact! Aside from my DVD drive, case and power supply, my computer is brand fucking new. Dual core 2.5 CPU, 4GB ram, new mobo, card reader/front panel and 500GB HDD was bought specifically to build a new rig that could handle Vista. These cost me all of $260 (before rebates). A second purchase of a new video card and power supply set me back another $120 (before rebate).
I downloaded a free copy of Vista Professional because I'm a student in some class or another and have gotten pretty far with it. After the first install, I tried throwing Ubuntu on the drive and it freaked out. I wasn't able to boot to either Vista or Linux. So I wiped the drive clean and re-installed Vista. I'll be trying again, but throwing Ubuntu on a different harddrive. Oh, and with a back up on hand this time in case of any fuck-ups. I'm also building a master apps CD, with all the best freeware and coding programs/libraries *cough*ROMs*cough* and codecs. Everything, you know?
I really like Vista so far. Turned off the idiot-warnings and it handles faster than XP. I don't like how the Start Menu was changed, but I'm sure that in a few days I'd have straighted it out.Every piece of hardware is 100% okay, it recognizes all my USB accessories perfectly, no crashes, completely updated to SP1 and beyond... I like Vista.
Again! Assuming you have the hardware- Vista looks sharp, is fast, and runs like a dream. If you can get a copy cheap (as a student), or upgrade- DO IT. There's nothing I want to do in XP that I can't in Vista.
| extrabastardformula wrote: |
| km wrote: |
| I haven't used Vista without SP1. Maybe that's why I don't blindly hate it? |
Pretty much. Also get a real video card. Out of the box Vista PCs come with shitty integrated chipsets that exist only to be able to provide the features Aero uses sometimes. |
My motherboard came this way. Vista runs, but not the super-fancy Aero or whatever. My real video card should be arriving in a few days.
Video cards are dirt-cheap, I just bought a year and a half-old GeForce 8600 GTS card for $40 after rebate. 512MB RAM @ 128bits, nothing too impressive, but more than enough for any game released to date. More than enough for Vista and Windows 7, too.
_________________
Still alive. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
DonMarco
graphics fucker
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 1:23 pm |
|
|
Vista had nothing but bad press from the start. Every MS OS does. When you design a platrom to run on and operate with literally hundreds of thousands of different parts from different vendors- there are bound to be a few problems. The major gripes with Vista were that it required much more operating power, comparing it to the previous OS that came out five years before. Five years is a fucking eternity in computer hardware and software development.
| km wrote: |
| Panoptic wrote: |
| I prefer XP myself, as the interface seems like a tighter, snappier experience (plus some of my programs just don't work right in Vista) but Vista isn't terrible assuming you have enough power for it. What I find funny about the Mojave Experiment ads is the people seeing the demos don't realize the demo systems would probably smash their systems out of existence. |
what are you even talking about, vista will run fine on a computer that costs $300 now
if you're saying that the hardware that most people own now won't run vista well, yeah, i guess i might agree, but most of those people are happy with xp. if they want all of the whizbang features of vista its kind of ridiculous to claim they can get all that with some kind of investment |
BAH!! The whole point of calling it Mojave is that people who never saw/used Vista in the last two years it's been out had good things to say about its features. People who saw and liked the Mac ads, I guess. The unwashed masses.
As for the demo systems, Vista runs on any modern ($300-$500) eMachine or laptop. Throw in more RAM and a video card and you're in business. All for a fraction of the price of the equivalent Mac.
Which is something Macs aren't known for! Apple doesn't see any money from the new upgrade part and they don't see any money from a new computer sale. It's a lose-lose situation they'd avoid simply by aggressive campaigning and selling the current year's image. It's the digital equivalent to those old West Virginia coal mining towns. The hard-working people living there got paid from the company, but every store and facility in the town was run by the company. The workers were overcharged and could do nothing about it but slowly work themselves into a debt that never decreased. The song "Sixteen Tons" is about such a place.
| shnozlak wrote: |
| I think computers should have flat uninteresting interfaces. Especially if Im trying to get work done. |
New buzzword this week: Multi-Dimensional Desktop.
_________________
Still alive. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
DonMarco
graphics fucker
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:09 pm |
|
|
| BenoitRen wrote: |
| shnozlak wrote: |
| I think computers should have flat uninteresting interfaces. Especially if Im trying to get work done. |
I strongly agree with this. An OS should be just a tool that doesn't get in my way. |
There's this scene in the movie Charlie Wilson's War when a contributor's waiting in Charlie's office and he notices that all of Charlie's pages and secretaries are beautiful, sexy women. One of them tells the man, "Charlie always said- 'You can teach them to type, but you can't teach them to grow tits.'"
So if you're going to spend 4, 8, 10+ hours a day five days a week, why not something that's a little aesthetically pleasing? Even if it isn't exactly perfect at first, eventually Vista will be better. For example, when I install it on my computer, it only recognizes 3GB of my 4GB installed. A few updates later, it recognizes all 4GB. Wow!
| BenoitRen wrote: |
| DonMarco wrote: |
| The major gripes with Vista were that it required much more operating power, comparing it to the previous OS that came out five years before. Five years is a fucking eternity in computer hardware and software development. |
The very nature of the PC beast is constantly upgrading to faster this or more powerful that. For 99% of all jobs and purposes, upgrading reduces processing time and time is money. Right along with the hardware, the software must follow and adapt.
So what? It's an OS. It shouldn't require a lot just to run. It's there to support the programs I actually care about. Vista reaks of bloat. |
What is an OS but a virtual interpretation of the computer? Why did people flock to Macintosh over DOS? Windows over MS-DOS? Mac OS X over Mac OS Classic? (LAWL this is an Intel joke)
Finding powerful, fast machines in an office is not hard to do. When installing video cards shave half the time (or more) off Photoshop renderings, they were bought without question. When USB 2.0 offered speeds 40x faster than USB 1, within a few weeks they became standards on all motherboards of all manufacturers.
Furthermore, finding video cards in personal computers was more of a standard. These additional GPUs just idling away, wasted. While Vista dared to thrive off it. It could also run on lesser systems, with all the bells and whistles turned off. But! The cost of either upgrading or the low prices of complete new systems is so low. I built mine for around $350 after rebates.
_________________
Still alive. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
DonMarco
graphics fucker
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:09 am |
|
|
| GcDiaz wrote: |
| DonMarco wrote: |
| I built mine for around $350 after rebates. |
Guys I just wanted World of Warcraft to look its best. :(
DM, that's about the same that my new build would cost me, if I bothered with the mail-in rebate stuff. $400 flat as is (mobo, video, cpu, ram, case, cooling). I bought Vista a long time ago, but had to reinstall XP when ASUS wouldn't bother to release drivers for my mobo. Another concern was losing access to Nero 6 and DVD Shrink. Thing is, I haven't copied a DVD in over a year, and I just got Nero 7 which is Vista friendly. So I pretty much have no reason to stick with the old, besides nostalgia or some perceived speed advantage over the new (which I doubt, with my new CPU and GPU driving things). You'd best believe I'm running a bunch of 3dMark tests on it, before I decide on which OS to keep. |
The rebates are well worth it, man. Sure you have to print out and fill in an invoice, print out and fill out the rebate, and cut out the UPC and THEN still have to mail it in... But it's really worth it.
I saved $30, almost half the cost, on the video card. $30 on the RAM, taking it from $50 for 4GB to $20 for 4GB- which is fucking amazing.
_________________
Still alive.
Last edited by DonMarco on Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
DonMarco
graphics fucker
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:47 pm |
|
|
| TheUser wrote: |
| So even though my account is an administrator, I have to run applications as administrator when I need admin privileges? |
I'm not sure what you mean. Is your admin account the only one active? Or are you logging in to a different account without admin privileges? Either that or the applications are only installed for the admin account.
Is this for all games/applications, or just certain ones?
_________________
Still alive. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
