Verran Posted March 10, 2008 Posted March 10, 2008 Sorry, but it definitely sounds like a PEBKAC error to me, as I've never experienced any such display with any installer. Maybe you didn't disable the UAC properly? I installed a basic Vista OS, basically all default options with no tweaking. Then I double click on an application to start the installer. It's not exactly quantum physics, you know? I understand that it doesn't happen to everyone and it seems weird, but it's now happened to me on multiple installs with both 32 and 64 bit. What exactly should I think, or how would I realistically go about alleviating this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Posted March 10, 2008 Posted March 10, 2008 Like XP? Just go back to 98se then. I actually had 98se dual booted on my main rig for 3d2k1 and suicide runs for quite some time. Your point is? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
road-runner Posted March 10, 2008 Posted March 10, 2008 The only thing that takes a few seconds to load is the widgets within my sidebar, but other than that, I can start anything immediately (though I'll often wait until AVG checks for updates). I wonder why it takes mine a minute to load? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted March 10, 2008 Posted March 10, 2008 Your point is? My point is that every new iteration of an OS will be slower by some small amount on the same hardware. If that amount is unnoticeable (and it is most of the time) there's no real point in complaining. I wonder why it takes mine a minute to load? Mine doesn't take very long at all to load either. Once my weather widget loads I'm good to go and that takes a couple seconds at best. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verran Posted March 10, 2008 Posted March 10, 2008 My point is that every new iteration of an OS will be slower by some small amount on the same hardware. If that amount is unnoticeable (and it is most of the time) there's no real point in complaining. It's a fair point in general, but even apart from my own issue described previously, I would say that "unnoticeable" is not always a fair description. On top of that, it's always going to be a matter of weighing the new "bloat" against new features. I'd say people have done that and significant amounts of those people have decided it's not worth it. This will not always be the case, just like it wasn't for XP. As people have said, when XP came out people were hesitant because of that bloat too. The move happened when the average system specs increased to the point that the bloat was not an issue. That will happen with Vista too, but I personally don't think the average system specs today are good enough to run Vista, which is why people wait. When I get my Q6600 and 4GB up and running, I'll be trying it again. We'll see how that goes... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
road-runner Posted March 10, 2008 Posted March 10, 2008 My point is that every new iteration of an OS will be slower by some small amount on the same hardware. If that amount is unnoticeable (and it is most of the time) there's no real point in complaining. Mine doesn't take very long at all to load either. Once my weather widget loads I'm good to go and that takes a couple seconds at best. Maybe it is my system waiting on the hard drive... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehit Posted March 11, 2008 Posted March 11, 2008 my system is not waiting for any hardware to catch up... i have the #1 QX6800 in PCMark Vantage on the hwbot. my hardware is very fast. with that said, the argument whether Vista is slower is a moot point. it is slower, and has been proven so many times. my PC is not as fast as it was on XP-Pro64. my benchmark scores are lower, and i cannot get as high a stable overclock. most of us here are trying to squeeze all the performance we can from our hardware. we spend tons of money trying to see just how far we can go. using Vista is indeed a step backward in the quest to go fast. it simply is slower. both RR and i were forced to install it to use CrossfireX. it would be pointless to have $900 worth of video cards that do not work together. i am running it dual boot and use it to play games that need the horsepower of the CrossfireX and to bench for the forum wars. the rest of the time i am quite happy with my XP64 and if i had to choose only one, i would sell the second card and keep my XP. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Posted March 11, 2008 Posted March 11, 2008 my system is not waiting for any hardware to catch up...i have the #1 QX6800 in PCMark Vantage on the hwbot. my hardware is very fast. with that said, the argument whether Vista is slower is a moot point. it is slower, and has been proven so many times. my PC is not as fast as it was on XP-Pro64. my benchmark scores are lower, and i cannot get as high a stable overclock. most of us here are trying to squeeze all the performance we can from our hardware. we spend tons of money trying to see just how far we can go. using Vista is indeed a step backward in the quest to go fast. it simply is slower. both RR and i were forced to install it to use CrossfireX. it would be pointless to have $900 worth of video cards that do not work together. i am running it dual boot and use it to play games that need the horsepower of the CrossfireX and to bench for the forum wars. the rest of the time i am quite happy with my XP64 and if i had to choose only one, i would sell the second card and keep my XP. Exactly If it is the average user on a web browsing PC that is used to waiting for everything they would not care or notice, but a benchmarker or overclocker will easily notice the difference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted March 11, 2008 Posted March 11, 2008 Maybe it is my system waiting on the hard drive... I have Vista 64 installed on RAID-0 Raptors...so yeah, maybe that's why I have no "lag" in start time? shrug Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kendellrt Posted March 11, 2008 Posted March 11, 2008 It is well documented and tested that XP is still quicker then Vista in most everything. Of course Vista is faster than XP on today's hardware, XP is almost seven years old. It had better run faster. I can't believe that Crysis requires better hardware than COD2! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
road-runner Posted March 11, 2008 Posted March 11, 2008 I dern sure have to wait on vista or something. When the desktop appears I can double click like coretemp, cpuz, and 3DMark and I have to wait about a minute to minute and half for them to open and also for the wireless connection to get going. Maybe I should not have disabled the search indexing thing in vista on the drive C? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted March 11, 2008 Posted March 11, 2008 When the desktop appears I can double click like coretemp, cpuz, and 3DMark and I have to wait about a minute to minute and half for them to open and also for the wireless connection to get going. That's crazy long. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now