Windows Vista

MORE EYE CANDY OR ITS GOING TO DIE

This is really infuriating me. I don't like the look of the Luna theme for XP let alone the look of the new Aero theme for Vista. But why does my computer run faster with the new Aero theme then with all the graphics and eye candy disabled?

I have set Vista to look as much like Windows 2000 as I can. But it is now running slower than it was when I had Aero on. Don't get me wrong I know lots of people will like Aero, with all its transparent windows etc, but a lot of customers won't read what they are getting and end up buying Home Basic which doesn't support Aero, or have a graphics card incapable of running Aero.

With XP the first thing I did was disable the Luna theme and put the Windows Classic theme on. Although the performance gain isn't great (infact it is very little) there is a slight gain. This is not the case with Vista, it clearly becomes slower. Because I want to live 7 years in the past I have to have an operating system that feels like it was made 7 years ago.

If anyone knows how to completely get rid of #1 please tell me.

If anyone knows how to get rid of #2 please tell me.

If anyone knows how to make #3 look like 2000 please tell me.

3 major annoyances for me.

LET THERE BE ART

Now with all the freeware paint applications out there, why have Microsoft insisted on using their shitty unmodified Paint program? Surely they could of paid out the people at Paint.net. I would say the people at GIMP but considering that was mainly built for Linux it would of been more ideal to purchase Paint.net.

With all the money that was spent on Vista a bit of money going out to get a good paint program built in to the operating system wouldn't be going too far would it?

WHERES MY MEMORY GONE

Thanks to the Superfetch service you can wave goodbye to your free memory. Now this isn't a rant at Microsoft, this is to the people that are moaning about the memory that they purchased to be doing things not doing things in XP but finally being used in Vista.

In XP the memory was wasted. I am pretty sure my second stick of 1024MB RAM was hardly used, most likely only when playing a game. But now people have Vista and their RAM is actually being used they are complaining.

Superfetch is a good thing. You don't need to do anything to configure it, you just need to use your computer doing what you normally do and it will learn from you. I think Superfetch is a great idea which should of been used earlier in XP.

HMM, WHATS THAT SOUND

It may just be me, but I can hear my hard drives now. I actually purchased a new 500GB Seagate Barracuda which I installed Vista on to. And boy did that thing make a noise. I have 3 other Barracudas in my PC which I have never heard before. But this drive was bad. In the end it turned out to be a bad drive after it got a BAD SMART status in POST.

That disk is now ready to be sent back to the retailer. I chose to wipe my XP installation and put Vista on my 320GB drive instead of waiting for a replacement. Although it is still quiet, in situations with high levels of disk activity I can hear sounds coming from it, albeit quiet. I never got this from XP and can only presume that this is Vista using the hard disk more effeciently.

WHATS HAPPENED TO MY MUSIC?

This may just be me (and probably is) but my music just doesn't sound the same since I put Vista on. The same speakers (Logitech Z-2300 2.1) and the same sound card (Creative X-Fi ExtremeMusic) but my music just sounds...pathetic. I don't have the same richness or bass to it as before. I can only assume this is due to the new way Microsoft have made audio work in Vista. Creative are supposingly working on a work around but for the time being I can't piss off my neighbour at 2AM with Anal Cunt blasting through my speakers, because it just sounds rough.

RIGHT....SO HOW LONG IS THIS GOING TO TAKE

Installation of Vista was a breeze, I am glad that Microsoft put all the questions right at the start so we could go and do something else rather than being asked a question mid way through installation like previous Windows did. It is also good to see that one of the first things it asks you is the serial number. Windows 98 liked to wait until it had finished to ask your for a serial number, which is the point where you realise you don't know where it is.

But what is taking long is AVG Antivirus. On XP a full scan of all my hard drives took no longer than 30minutes. That is with literally hundreds of applications and games installed on it. Now with Vista with only a couple of games and applications installed, AVG has been going for a good hour and a quater with still quite a bit to go. Surely Vista with a very little amount of applications on can't have as many files as XP with hundreds on?

LETS DEFRAG

Yes you still need to defrag but now Microsoft have just completely spoilt my fun. You don't get any graphs now. I was disappointed at first when I upgraded to 2000 from 98 that the defrag had changed. But it did give me a fun (well not really) game to play. Beat the defrag.

Open up Disk Defragmenter and analyze the partition of your choice. You then take a screenshot and paste in to paint. Then you tell Disk Defragmenter to Defragment. This is where the fun begins. You have to paint all the red and green fragmented files blue then move them on to the Defragmented bar below before Windows had finished Defragging. Unfortunately if you defragged a lot you would always lose.

But now we get nothing, just a button saying "Cancel Defragmentation". BORING.

I WANT TO GAME

I am not going to blame Microsoft for this one. There could be various factors that could cause the problem. I tried loading S.T.A.L.K.E.R (I will just right STALKER from now on, it is annoying to keep typing S.T.A.L.K.E.R). Installation was a breeze and the game loaded up alright. I then put max settings on like I had with XP. It was running great. I spoke to the trader and walked up the stairs. PAUSE. But I didn't tell it to pause, it then very slowly, I guess around 5fps allowed me to walk up the stairs. Eventually when I got to the top of the stairs the framerate went up to around 20fps or so I guess, as there was very little FPS lag noticeable. ARGGH. Texture corruptions where everywhere. Sky turned black at some angles and I was some of the weirdest leaves on the floor that I think anyone has seen. It was unbearable so I closed it.

Now it is time to try Counter Strike Source. Steam loaded up (quicker than ever I must add) and I loaded up Counter Strike. Max settings. Stress test came out with 230fps which is a little bit more than I got in XP, not much though. In game the frame rates were good, staying above 170fps staying around 200fps or so. But then I made the mistake of Alt + Tabbing out of the game to answer a friends reply on MSN Messenger. Now I can't get back in the game. I had to end the hl2.exe task and load it up again. There goes the need for my dual displays.

WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER 11

This will be a short one. But WHY did Microsoft see fit to change the WMP icon? It was perfectly fine in the release candidates and XP.

CONCLUSION

Well to conclude. If you want Vista and you have the cash laying around. Get it, it is stable enough and usable so there is no reason not to get it. But there is also no reason to get it. So if you don't want Vista or you don't have the cash or hardware, don't get it. You aren't missing out on much.

If you do decide to get Vista I suggest you dual boot with a working installtion of XP so you can still play games while the bugs in games and drivers are sorted out.

I mainly see Vista as XP with more eye candy and DX10. The only real selling point to Vista is DX10 to me. And I think that is the sole reason Microsoft will not be making it available on XP as it would make Vista pointless.