just about 100% percent sure that halo 2 on pc is only for vista, because it takes part in the windows live silver thing that makes it so you can play with people on xbox too etc.

Quote: Originally Posted by deere just about 100% percent sure

Hmm, "just about sure" doesn't sound like 100%. But I would go on a limb and say that it's almost certain Halo 2 will require Vista...not because of MS Live, not because of OS requirements, not because of DirectX 10...but because it's Microsoft that makes both, and wants to force everyone to buy Vista, come hell or high water. Just as I'd also bet that the future versions of MS Office probably also will require Vista. I'm "just about sure" of that...maybe 99.9%.

Ive just this hour installed Vista Ultimate and am OK with it so far

The last 2 days, I was playing around with a Toshiba Tecra A9 laptop...Core 2 Duo, 1 GB of RAM, Windows Vista Business Ed....and I have to admit I was none too impressed at how slow the thing was, even compared to my rather old-generation μ-Blaze M-ATX computer and it's P4 Northwood 3.0 GHz, 800 FSB, 1 gig RAM...Vista took MUCH longer to boot up. And it seemed everything I tried to open, I had to wait an extra few seconds for its window to appear. And that was *after* I spent a few hours tweaking Vista for better performance! It's really a shame that a computer with that much better hardware performed that much slower. Way to go, Microsoft! Maybe I'll have to do like everyone else and buy a 4 GB USB stick just so Vista will boot as fast as a computer running hardware from 2 years ago.

Must be the hardware, my new install is extremely fast, boots much quicker than XP, no lag when moving large files or running stuff, even gaming seems just as good as XP

Quote: Originally Posted by Dex Must be the hardware, my new install is extremely fast, boots much quicker than XP, no lag when moving large files or running stuff, even gaming seems just as good as XP

Nope, I'm afraid not, Dex. I've overclocked just about anything that can be overclocked since it was done with jumpers instead of BIOS; my primary specialties and interests in computers are in tweaking performance in any way possible, and manual removal of unwanted malware (viruses, spyware, trojans, etc.); my solution to an infection isn't "partition and reformat the drive"; which, though effective, doesn't teach one anything about how malware works or how to remove it without destroying one's data.

I know how a PC ought to perform, given the hardware and software on top of it. Vista is a dog...a beautiful-looking afghan hound. But it's no greyhound or whippet. Your XP system mustn't be configured very well if your Vista outperforms it. I'd love to see what's going on with your XP box. Does your Vista boot in under 30 seconds? I highly doubt it. The C2D laptop I was playing with was stripped of unwanted Toshiba crapware; unnecessary services; and of course various performance tweaks like reducing the disk usage of System Restore; manually configuring the pagefile to an optimal specific max/min value instead of letting Windows doink with it on the fly; minimizing the appearance elements that most impinge upon performance (things like animated windows, fades, smooth-scrolls...but keeping the cool transparencies & button glows); manually removing unwanted Registry RUN keys from HKCU and HKLM...and even after all that, Vista took well over a minute just to get to the Windows desktop, and maybe almost ANOTHER minute before the disk was finished thrashing around doing God-knows-what. Almost any XP box I've cleaned up will boot to the Windows desktop, finish its drive thrashing, and be waiting for user input in LESS than a minute (as long as there's no antivirus software running, as those tend to execute startup scans which bog down Windows startup).

Logically, Vista CAN'T outperform XP, it's built on the exact same OS infrastructure, but loads several new processes. It currently does not take advantage of any more memory than XP does, and Home Basic takes advantage of even LESS than XP Pro (besides, how many manufacturers have desktop motherboards supporting more than 4 GB of memory? Very few...), or even 64-bit versions of Win 2K for that matter. To get improved performance on Vista, you need increased pagefile resources; on the disk drive or optional USB sticks. "Superfetch" is nothing more than keeping frequently-used apps in these extended pagefiles.

The logic and the reality is that Vista can't outperform XP or even 64-bit Win 2K. However, the need for DirectX 10 in future games will allow Vista to outperform XP in ONLY those games with DX10 code optimizations. That's really the long and short of it.

Still, works for me

There was no 64-bit Win2000 that I know of.

NT5 was scrapped on the Alpha, and x86-64 didn't show up until MS was completely disinterested in 2000.

Honestly, I'd probably still be using Win2000 if it had a XP-style prefetching-optimizer. It drove me nuts how my 4600+ would boot more slowly and thrash the disc more than much slower machines with newer OSes.

Quote: Originally Posted by Hak Foo There was no 64-bit Win2000 that I know of.

It might not have been commonplace, but it existed indeed.

"Windows 2000 was made available in four editions: Professional, Server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server. Additionally, Microsoft offered Windows 2000 Advanced Server Limited Edition and Windows 2000 Datacenter Server Limited Edition, which were released in 2001 and run on 64-bit Intel Itanium microprocessors."

Wiki URL

Quote: Honestly, I'd probably still be using Win2000 if it had a XP-style prefetching-optimizer. It drove me nuts how my 4600+ would boot more slowly and thrash the disc more than much slower machines with newer OSes.

I agree, I like how XP prefetches. Btw, I did some tests on 2 of my Win XP Pro PCs, and posted it on YouTube.

For interest's sake:

My most modern PC, the unfinished "Modding On The Cheap" PC, runs a Core 2 Duo E4300, 1 gig of RAM and ABIT AW9D mobo. It boots fully to the desktop, finishes the "mouse busy" pointer, no more disk activity, in almost exactly 50 seconds. My μ-Blaze m-ATX PC, by comparison, is running about 3-year-old hardware: P4 Northie 3 GHz, 1 gig RAM, and MSI MS-6540 mATX mobo. It boots XP in about 47 seconds, even running one more process than the newer PC, and after loading my Hercules Fortissimo III soundcard applet.

Granted, it isn't easy to get XP to boot, load the desktop, and be ready for uninterrupted user input in less than a minute, it takes a bit of tweaking. But, I'd love to see a video of Vista booting similarly, finish loading whatever processes it needs to load, finish thrashing the disk, and be ready to rumble in under a minute. From a cold start. No fancy sleep or hibernate modes. The challenge is out there, and I put my money where my big mouth is...

Right here. Hope my commentary isn't too lame! Hehe!

Win XP Pro Boot Speed Demo 1

Win XP Pro Boot Speed Demo 2

Backing you up Coelcanth, I had Vista installed on my rig a few months ago, and damn, it was so slow. Once you eventually got it loaded it wasn't too bad, but shutting down in particular took two or three minutes, which is clearly totally ridiculous considering my XP install shuts down in about fifteen seconds. It also wouldn't hibernate, merely rebooting...so I'm guessing it doesn't like certain hardware configurations, and until they release a finished product, I'm not touching it. Complete waste of time considering most of the improvements are merely visual.

Quote: Originally Posted by reflux Complete waste of time considering most of the improvements are merely visual.

Yeah, that's about all that Vista brings to the table, new visual effects. And I guarantee you, after a week of using Vista, who really gives a sh!t about your window buttons glowing, and adjustable transparency? It looks great on a demo shelf at Future Shop, but once you're actually using it to do your work, you don't care anymore. I really doubt everyone's going "Ohhh that's cool!" each time they hover over a window button, 3 months after they got a computer with Vista installed!

What is most disappointing though, about some of those laptop manufacturers...they don't even have Win XP drivers for their newer laptops, and don't plan on coding any, if you had the bright idea of getting rid of Vista and rolling back to XP. So, you gotta be very careful if you're planning on buying a newer laptop and really want XP on it. Some brands allow you to use XP, but other brands don't even make XP drivers for them; effectively forcing you to use Vista. Nice stuff.

Just seen the Halo 2 only on Vista discussion at the top of this page, FYI, I got Halo 2 to work on XP. Pm me and Ill show you

ive been using vista ultimate for several months on just a lame old s939 3500 and 2gb of ram, and it seems to run like champ.. no long booting, no long shutdowns... the only problem i ever have is with my video settings, but thats because im running a res far surpassing the specs on my kvm (which also is problematic to begin with) i dual boot that machine with ubuntu and i go back and forth semi-permanently every couple months... i like both OS's.

i use vista business at work (the only person in the whole building who kept the oem install from dell) and i love it.

i also use xp mce at home on my gamer.

i really have little to no qualms with vista, and i could care less about the DX9 vs DX10 debate, we will all have to switch OS's soon enough, so may as well not whine about it (in my opinion)
i fight with my boss all the time about the pros and cons of Vista vs XP, and its usually a no-win situation..
i dont get where people wind up having such terrible compatibility issues and things... the ONLY thing that i had trouble with was my steam games, and since the machine it was on was not a gamer, i didnt care.

XP isnt going away yet, and Vista is definitely not going away any time soon, and Linux is (and always will be) there hangin out...

i just like the idea of having such a large pool to pick from.. thats fun to me

Here here. All these whingers must be complete n00blets or have duff hardware, nothings slower on mine, everything works, and it hasn't crashed once yet in just over a week running 24/7.

I don't see where claims that Vista is rubbish for gaming have any grounds either, the only game that i've come across so far that flat our won't work is 'Soldiers - Heroes Of WW2' which I tried because for some reason my house mates are obsessed with it... doesn't look that great lol... all my Steam games work perfectly, CoH, DiRT, TOCA3, BF2, all fine and no slower.

Im guessing its the recent updates that may have made a difference in performance, Vista installed over 40 updates when I first connected to the web and as I said has been perfect since.

Trust me, I wouldn't still be using it if I felt it was worse than XP. I have a streamlined unattended setup XP disk sitting on my desk, perfectly configured for my box in case Vista was w*nk and the dust is building up...

Quote: Originally Posted by Coelacanth What is most disappointing though, about some of those laptop manufacturers...they don't even have Win XP drivers for their newer laptops, and don't plan on coding any, if you had the bright idea of getting rid of Vista and rolling back to XP. So, you gotta be very careful if you're planning on buying a newer laptop and really want XP on it. Some brands allow you to use XP, but other brands don't even make XP drivers for them; effectively forcing you to use Vista. Nice stuff.

Which is exactly why I chose switching to Linux soon. I am beginning to need a laptop for work and school since I seem to be on road more than I am at home now, and Vista just isn't gonna fly with me. Ubuntu, here I come.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dex Here here. All these whingers must be complete n00blets or have duff hardware, nothings slower on mine, everything works, and it hasn't crashed once yet in just over a week running 24/7.

Consider me a "whinger" but not a n00blet. Btw, how about posting boot speed demos of both your XP and Vista boxes? Can either one boot in under a minute? Unfortunately for me, I can't afford cutting-edge hardware, so I've long ago learned how to get the most out of what I *can* afford. Less unnecessary sh!t running in the background = more available performance for games, apps, multitasking or just plain booting up quickly. Vista = lots of unnecessary sh!t running in the background.

Oh, and if you require uber non-"duff" hardware just to get a spanky-lookin' O/S running faster than a dead turkey, is that really a good thing?

Id hardly call an E4300 and a P5Ne motherboard "uber non-'duff' hardware" considering its an entry level CPU and a budget overclockers board, but id be happy to post up my Vista boot time.

Not really revelant considering I can't provide an XP bench on the same machine, niether are you running XP on a P5Ne for direct comparison.

Further more, whats the obsession with boot times? I turn my machine off say twice a week, usually when im in a bad mood and need totally silent sleep. When I turn it on in the morning, I do it leaving the room to have a p1ss and get coffee lol

EDIT: Here we are, recorded a few mins ago, my Vista boot time. Pressed the power button on my box at around the 5 second mark on the vid, apologies for the two boot errors which required keyboard input, should only have added 1/2 seconds to boot time. 2 seconds off for entering my password, so total boot time around 1 min 26 seconds.

Easily enough time to have p1ss, get some coffee, walk back up the stairs and sit down ready to use my machine...

http://dirkhilldesign.co.uk/vistaboot.mov

I still need to stick with XP, but my laptop had its own brain and formatted itself. I use ubuntu linux in some cases and I also use Server 2003 Enterprise.