Sparda Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 So I installed Vista Ultimate on a 3200+ Socket A, 1.5GB RAM, ATI 9800XT. otb windows update didn't work giving Microsoft's useful error codes "80072efd" and "8024402C". Any way, for some reason, making IE use a proxy fixes this. Why? Any one have any ideas? I don't have a local proxy what so ever. DHCP gave Vista an IP and the gateways IP. What is going on? IE and Firefox can access the internet fine (with no proxy set). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaKo Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Where did you get vista from? I would recommend you get hold of windows 2008 myself, makes for a nice workstation OS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmoothCriminal Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 You should change the title to the other 96 percent lives. Oh, and personally I'm a fan of XP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomeoneE1se Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 XP FTL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digip Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 XP FTL Is that "XP, Fuck The Linux"? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomeoneE1se Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 you wish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparda Posted February 22, 2008 Author Share Posted February 22, 2008 My brothers Laptop has Vista on it as well. Apparently updates never worked for him either (and it came with the laptop). Perhaps it's some thing with my network (even though absalutly every thing else works flawlessly). I disabled IPv6 on the off change it was trying to use that. Additonaly: I'v alredy had to reinstall Vista once becasue it decided to refuse to boot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digip Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 My brothers Laptop has Vista on it as well. Apparently updates never worked for him either (and it came with the laptop). Perhaps it's some thing with my network (even though absalutly every thing else works flawlessly). I disabled IPv6 on the off change it was trying to use that. Additonaly: I'v alredy had to reinstall Vista once becasue it decided to refuse to boot. You might want to UPGRADE to XP. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparda Posted February 22, 2008 Author Share Posted February 22, 2008 As some one who gives tech support (and will end up doing it as a job) I have to know the ins and outs of vista (no matter how rubish it is, and how it doesn't work). The most confusing thing really is why they are 5 or so different menus for network configuration. Any road, I'm going to install SP1 and see if that fixes windows's inability to perform updates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomeoneE1se Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 You might want to UPGRADE to XP. ;) XP is not an upgrade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digip Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 You might want to UPGRADE to XP. ;) XP is not an upgrade --It was Sarcasm-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razor512 Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 a upgrade is something that improves speed and performance and adds functionality but is must improve speed and performance while adding functionality (would you "upgrade" from your quad core, to a amd K6-2 500MHz ?) vista does none of this no new hardware support and every single vista vs xp benchmark shows vista as being slower and vista has a lot more problems installing drivers than windows xp something just always messes up for no reason some microsoft fanboys often argue that in a few years we will be complaining that we want to keep our vista and not get the new windows but this is pretty much wrong when xp came out, we had a reason to upgrade xp added support for more memory, it added multicore support and a number of other hardware supports but with vista, it doesnt offer anything new in terms of support all the user will notice is a new look which 90% of us will most likely disable and switch to the windows classic look and use that little adjust for best performance setting so at that point vista is offering nothing other than a harder to use UI because some idiots dcided to spread the settings over like 30 different windows instead of just 1 or 2 like in windows xp so now we have to jusp through hoops and bend over backwards just to get to most commonly used settings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmoothCriminal Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 I wouldn't necessarily agree with the improving speed part. Overall, most new OS's get slower. The functionality part is dead on. Since when does XP offer good support for multi cores? Sure they work with XP, but I would by no means say they work well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparda Posted February 23, 2008 Author Share Posted February 23, 2008 I wouldn't necessarily agree with the improving speed part. Overall, most new OS's get slower. The functionality part is dead on. it's interesting you say that, because resizing a window in vista (with all the unnecessary fancy stuff turned on) uses all the CPU. However, moving a window uses next to nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deveant Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 I wouldn't necessarily agree with the improving speed part. Overall, most new OS's get slower. The functionality part is dead on. it's interesting you say that, because resizing a window in vista (with all the unnecessary fancy stuff turned on) uses all the CPU. However, moving a window uses next to nothing. disagree, from idel (1-2% usage) moving a window, no change in idel, resizing a window the usage kicks to a whoppings 3%... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparda Posted February 23, 2008 Author Share Posted February 23, 2008 disagree, from idel (1-2% usage) moving a window, no change in idel, resizing a window the usage kicks to a whoppings 3%... What kind of computer do you have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deveant Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 What kind of computer do you have? CPU: Intel Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz Ram: Kingston 2046Mb @ 800 GPU: 2x Indio 8800GT SLI HDD: WD Rapter 80Gb OS: Vista Ultimate 32 Vista Rating: 5.5 - Due to RAM. All other components are 5.9. I know what you getting at, my system is more than enough to run Vista, were as lower end systems will struggle, but then again, are u running vista on windows recomemded hardware specs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparda Posted February 23, 2008 Author Share Posted February 23, 2008 Microsoft recommends I should have: # 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor # 1 GB of system memory # 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space # Support for DirectX 9 graphics with: * WDDM Driver * 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum) * Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware * 32 bits per pixel I actually have: CPU: AMD Athlon 3200+ Socket A Ram: 1.5GB RAM DDR400 GPU: ATI 9800XT 256MB OS: Vista Ultimate 32 Vista 'rating;: 3.7, apparently the CPU is crap (what a lie Individual scores: CPU 3.7 RAM 4.2 GPU 4.9 gaming GPU 4.6 (how is this different to the other one?) HD: 4.9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deveant Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Microsoft recommends I should have: # 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor # 1 GB of system memory # 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space # Support for DirectX 9 graphics with: * WDDM Driver * 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum) * Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware * 32 bits per pixel I actually have: CPU: AMD Athlon 3200+ Socket A Ram: 1.5GB RAM DDR400 GPU: ATI 9800XT 256MB OS: Vista Ultimate 32 Vista 'rating;: 3.7, apparently the CPU is crap (what a lie Individual scores: CPU 3.7 RAM 4.2 GPU 4.9 gaming GPU 4.6 (how is this different to the other one?) HD: 4.9 Theres no way resizing a window should pump u up to 90%+ usage with specs like that, though with the CPU, i would more suggest Vista Home, but still again, thats not really gonna change the overall running that much. As for the Gaming GPU over the GPU, Gaming is for DirectX applications, my laptop has i think a 4.6 GPU with only a 4 Gaming GPU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparda Posted February 23, 2008 Author Share Posted February 23, 2008 Theres no way resizing a window should pump u up to 90%+ usage with specs like that, though with the CPU, i would more suggest Vista Home, but still again, thats not really gonna change the overall running that much. Additionally, I'm using the driver for the graphics card that came with Vista (and was updated via the, still only working over a proxy, windows update). I found a few more annoyances. I quickly discovered this time around that Vista was able to turn off the hard drive (for the power saving) but was unable to turn it back on(?!). Admittedly I have a bit of a strange SATA controller (SMART flat doesn't work), but if windows can't be confident it will beable to turn the disk back on, it shouldn't turn it off. I thought it would be fun to install the moving background. That really doesn't work at all. It's not like I have especially strange hardware. It's common of a computer that is three years old. Why does vista (appear) to hate it so? Still can't burn cd/dvd images, this pisses me off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digip Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Still can't burn cd/dvd images, this pisses me off. Vista should have built in burning capabilities if you use Media Center for CD's and Movies. media player I think gives an option to burn files as well, and there is also the add to burn later option for files, but i never use it. I couldn't get Vista to load Nero 6, so I went with BurnXP which ran fine on Vista and was able to burn my discs with no problems. Plus its free. http://cdburnerxp.se/features Vista isnt hard to learn, its just hard to make things work with it because of drivers and the way they block programs from running. There should be NO reason Nero 6 will not run under vista other than the fact that they block it from running. It installs fine, and even loads, but as soon as you open the burning window it closes it out, Probably because of drivers not being signed and Nero sayign "Lets turn a rpfit and make a new one for Vista", but still, I cant see why they block it other than Vista is just crap. I have an OEM cd of Nero 6 and it told me I had to upgade to nero 8 to install nero. What garbage. I also hate the new integrate image/video viewer. Under XP, browsing images was easy, but in vista, if you have Videos in the same foler, it tries to load the video when all you want to do is skip it to the next image in the folder. They should have an option to disable quick browsing of the videos so you can see just the images. Also, I like WMP10 better than 11, but Vista comes with 11 by default. I would like a version of windows with NO media player and give me th eoption to choose one so I can put WMP10 on instead. 10 seemed more stable and I liked its layout of controls better. It also seemed more light weight on resources than 11. I had it on XP for all of 2 minutes before uninstalling it back to WMP10. Vista cant downgrade to 10 since it comes with 11, although the Vista Business version comes with no media player installed at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razor512 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 ms should have never changed the layout of the os the original layout used in windows 95,98,me,2000 and xp and everyone liked it but now they decided to make stupid changes that makes it harder to get to commonly used settings developers need to learn that windows is a os, not a game no one likes a os that harder to run than most new games i'm using a amd opteron 170 (overclocked from 2GHz to 2.717GHz) 2GB memory geforce 6800 overclocked xp took around 17 seconds to boot, vista took almost 2 minutes the folders loaded slower and were more slugish the os over all reacted slower even with all extra effects and eyecandy disabled Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digip Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 ms should have never changed the layout of the os the original layout used in windows 95,98,me,2000 and xp and everyone liked it but now they decided to make stupid changes that makes it harder to get to commonly used settings developers need to learn that windows is a os, not a game no one likes a os that harder to run than most new games i'm using a amd opteron 170 (overclocked from 2GHz to 2.717GHz) 2GB memory geforce 6800 overclocked xp took around 17 seconds to boot, vista took almost 2 minutes the folders loaded slower and were more slugish the os over all reacted slower even with all extra effects and eyecandy disabled Do you have the Indexing turned off on the HDD's as well as the Indexing and Search services disabled? There are a lot of things Vista loads that do not need to run and I think this is part of the initial lag. THe other problem is file copying over a LAN but this is not something that can be fixed through settings of the OS, since its a design feature in the way they implemented it this time around. SP1 was supposed to fix it, but some people are reporting that it only slightly makes a difference, and not noticable enough to even consider it a fix considering that for some people, depending on their setuo, it can actually make things slower after SP1 (if by chance it doesnt cause you to get the step 3 infinite reboot loop). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razor512 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 yep i disable all extra startup items when i first used it, got the running processes down to 22 which made the startup much faster and the os faster but nowhere near as fast as xp my windows xp startup is completely stripped down to 11 running processes at startup (would be 10 but i have to keep the lexmark service in startup for the printer to work right) windows xp startup is usually around 17 seconds but will gradually go up to around 20 seconds but doing a disk defrag and doing a boot defrag using tunexp brings it right back to around 17 seconds vista partition has almost no fragmentation, but i defragged it anyway and stripped down the startup and it still takes around a minute to fully startup and many of the other pcs that i reinstalled vista for had the core 2 e6400 dual core (purchased from a store ) and on the default startup with the preinstalled crap the startup was almost 3 minutes before you could use the pc and since i didnt know what they would use the pc for, i couldn't disable some of the crap and shave a minute off of the startup the windows xp pcs that came with crap preinstalled and the billions of running processes only took 45 seconds-130 seconds to boot and become usable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jollyrancher82 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Vista 'rating;: 3.7, apparently the CPU is crap (what a lie That CPU is crap and old, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.