So you think you want to go Windows Vista huh? (part 2, Angry's rant)

[dr_bowtie]

Issue solved

 

for the most part I finally got more than 2 channel audio...although it still isnt quite as good sounding as xp or xp64 but I now have the full array of audio selections...

 

ExRodie mentioed to me to find the *correct* Realtek driver so I proceeded 1st to find what chip was on the board and then doing a yahoo search took me right to the realtek site and nabbing the vista driver...

 

For some reason Vista installs a nForce3 audio driver by defaut and it's minimal at best and options as well as sound quality really suck. Even windows update or hours of searching only bring nVidia stuff...

 

I have spent hours and hours searching for a fix and found nothing...that is until ExRodie clues me in on the Realtek thing....They just released a driver for Vista on 2/7/07 so It wasnt out while I was searching so maybe that's why I couldnt find it...?

 

but any how problem solved for the most part...

[Angry_Games]

Give the settings in Media Player a through going over before you render a final verdict.

 

The default setup has SRS WOW turned on which tends to muddy-up the Bass and distort the Mid-High. I've never found a "good" setting for the SRS functions so I keep it turned off.

 

Besides the high CPU usage I haven't found any sonic degradation of my reference audio tracks at all.

been playing with it for 3 weeks on two different machines daily, and dr_bowtie is correct, the sound in Vista stinks compared to XP, regardless of onboard (ALC882 HD) audio, or Audigy2 ZS.

 

I boot the machines to XP and play a game and/or listen to music, then boot to Vista and do the same thing.

 

Winamp, Windows Media, it doesn't matter. Vista stinks for sound compared to XP, but most people probably won't even notice it (which really sucks since if no one bothers to complain, it won't ever get fixed)

[dr_bowtie]

I am not sure what it base the sound characteristics on or how the whole thing works...

 

I mean it's like this....I only have the sound quality issue with newer music...

 

Older CD's like VanHalen and The Cars dont have the sound issues...

 

but stuff like Metallica and Motley Crue does...some I am not sure what the cause is...and I loaded all the music in MP-9 on my LP-B NF2 rig...and then switched to MP-10...I have ripped nothing on MP-11 and for Vista I just moved 10gig of music thru the network to the Vista rig...

[Fenix-Dark]

I have a bit of a different view on linux. It was only recently that it was decided by a few distributions that it should be easy enough to use/install for someone with an "IQ of 6." It was created as a project, not something to be mass marketed as easy to use.

 

Computers are fundamentally complicated, I give Microsoft the credit they're due for simplifying the process. But they may have simpified it to the point where it dumbs down the users where they cant cope with something different. Just about any linux/bsd user can figure out how to use a windows computer in 15 minutes. Thats not to say that Linux users are smarter. It takes time to read and patiences to use linux, and those "skills" and habbits will carry over to whatever you use, be it MS windows XP, Vista, or OS X. What is happening now, and has been happening for the past few years is that linux is trying to be manipulated into something its not. It isn't as easy to install as os x or windows xp, but thats part of its design and your ability to manipulate every part of the software. After its installed and tweaked enough, it can be just as easy to use as OS X or Windows, if not easier, with all the productivity reducing eye-candy.

 

To some degree its a blessing that Linux is "hard" to install. It keeps the people afraid to try something new and different from using it. The same people who have windows habbits of just clicking "next, next, next" and not reading what options are checked when installing applications or drivers. Those same people who are used to frequent Operating system problems when its clearly a poorly coded third party application or driver's fault. They would get angry and blame linux when some specific 3rd party app created by some troll high on nutmeg and oregano crashes. They'd go around spreading propoganda saying "OMG this linux . sucks, it keeps crashing and wont work."

 

In a perfect world windows would be 100% stable, but people get money from selling exploits, and others dont care about quality of the drivers for your clearance special digicam. If you install windows xp on compatable hardware with no 3rd party drivers or applications, I have no doubts that it would be 100% stable, but how useful is that?

[likewhoa]

so how many running vista x64 and loving it?

[Lenny_Nero]

Stuck my head in hear and found this thread, I have not read it all (every word) I was a bit surprised to see many of the Intel users seem to have missed the extra step that their chips (from the 'D' onwards) allow Vista to report back everything you do with 'your' computer.

 

I still run Win2000 as my main OS with just about every company I have anything to do with and as M$ will be supporting it for twice as long as XP-SP2 (I expect it will get longer, they were forced to bring it up from the year it was given at first) there is no need to change. I run many things that are 'said' to be XP only, even down to my HDTV card, I thought that was going to be a bit of a problem, but that only took a few hours to sort the drivers out, it is only a UI change and the system restore kludge (that was the reason for ME to be released) after all.

 

Even Vista's 'super security' is looking to be just as untrue as it was with XP, but as long as you keep your DEP on and dont turn off the UAC than the 64 bit version is a bit safer... just, but keep that mike turned off

 

For the XP lovers that still think the desktop versions of Linux are too much like hard work you could help the people working on ReactOS to push that bit harder with a few beta tests of some of your stuff and get it pushed thru a bit faster.

[Kingfisher]

Only one I know so far is raider, he more or less said it's "ok".

I am watching and waiting, sooner or later I will have a go at vista 64 bit.

[Coors]

Yeah I'm running the 64 bit version...but I screwed it up somehow when I loaded XP onto the other HDD(long story)....but now I'm going to install 32 bit and see if it runs any better as far as games go. I would think that the 32 bit would be better for gaming since it wouldn't have to emulate everything. But honestly most games I've played ran just fine as far as FPS. Only Dark Messiah will crash during a loading screen every once in a while. Stalker looks fricken awesome on it.

[uneedav8]

Yeah I'm running the 64 bit version...but I screwed it up somehow when I loaded XP onto the other HDD(long story)....but now I'm going to install 32 bit and see if it runs any better as far as games go. I

 

 

LOL, I did the exact same thing. I didn't notice a huge difference from going back to 32 but let use know what you think. I tried and tried to like Vista but I am back to XP for now.

[Praz]

Dell brings back XP on home systems

 

http://news.com.com/2100-1046_3-6177619.ht...-0-20&subj=news

[Guest SuppA-SnipA]

now i just say screw vista, i scream at all my friends that have it, "HOW DO U LIVE?" cuz i just cant take its slowness, and go for dell on the XP part

[momoceio]

I'm running both on my home machine and Vista (at least on my computer) runs quite a bit quicker than XP does. I also haven't experienced any slowdowns in my older video games.