Posted on 02/14/2007 12:59:04 PM PST by aft_lizard
Vista does have rudimentary support, the nvidia drivers they have dont allow my monitor to go to 1440x900, my monitors native resolution. ANd as stable as that driver is my eyes are more important, so I wil stick with these buggy ones directl from nVidia.
OH well. Since its in its infancy I just have to deal with it. Other than the driver issue I really like the feel of the OS though.
I'm using Onboard Nvidia GeForce 6150 Video without issue...
Although I do like ATI better(for video quality reasons), I will be switching to them when I get a dedicated video card, Along with an ATI TV tuner card... To use with Vista's Media Center ;)
XP's load time is quick?
I said, ATI(For Video Quality Reasons, thats only for gaming DVD and video playback on my ONboard GeForce 6150 is flawless)
That also threw me for a loop, I think he is a little bit crazy.. Vista to me at least is WAY faster overall than XP...
I have Copied about (not exaggerating about 45-50 DVD movies so far with Vista it's fast! in the past couple days)
Thank you SlySoft.com ;)
There is a myriad of driver support problems with Vista. Both ATI and Nvidia had open letters explaining that they were given little or no support by MS in the development phase. Many other hardware companies said the same thing, and from I've seen in the field I tend to believe it.
The wise move for now is to wait. Driver support should be up to snuff in about six months.
From boot to all of its services running my XP machine is up and going in less than 30 seconds, I would say Vista is about 5-10 seconds slower. Actually with aeroglass off, it is a bit faster than XP. You do realize that Vista uses appx 2-3 times more memory with everything on, than XP.
You are confusing two things, load time and then once its up and running. I think Vista is alot faster once its running, however from boot to completely loaded its start up time is slower than XP.
The onboard video cards are using rudimentary drivers developed and signed by both MS and the manufacturer, thats why people dont have problems with them. However if you have a stand alone solution the drivers that MS have for some reason didnt allow me to put my monitor at its native resolution, so thus I had to go with the drivers directly from nVidia.
Also read anand's review...
No need, I have a XP computer sitting right next to me and it is faster loading. Its stats?
XP computer:
3800+ X2 OC'd to 2.4 ghz(s939)
2 gigs of ram
7900 GT KO GPU
Vista
4600+ X2 at 2.4ghz(sAM2)
2 gigs of Ram
7900 GT KO
No need, I have a XP computer sitting right next to me and it is faster loading. Its stats?
XP computer:
3800+ X2 OC'd to 2.4 ghz(s939)
2 gigs of ram
7900 GT KO GPU
Vista
4600+ X2 at 2.4ghz(sAM2)
2 gigs of Ram
7900 GT KO
He is right about the wake time though, that blows XP's out of the water by a mile.
I've now got dual boot XP/Ubuntu on my laptop. More and more I am going to Ubuntu.
I got this for less than $200 not to bad for an Opteron Dual-Core at 2.8GHZ with 2GB of Ram... ;)
The Motherboard Was $67
Yes, some people MAY have a problem with the Sleep function in Vista, because MOST default BIOS settings for suspend to ram is S1 you need to set it up to At least (S1 & S3) to make it work correctly(at least thats what I have have noticed)
SO, IF you ever clear you CMOS, OR if you BIOS ever resets from a maximum overclock, make sure you reset the S1 setting back to (S1 & S3)
IF you're a Do-it-Yourself person like me you shouldn't have a problem...
$189.99 (G.Skill 2GB (2 x 1GB)(PC 3200)2-3-2-5)
Total $456.99
I will be getting a PCIe video card when the new ATI mid-range DirectX 10 video cards come out in April.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.