Relieving the bloating

Discussion in 'Installation & Compatibility' started by medwardl, Nov 15, 2007.

  1. medwardl

    medwardl

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK I'm currently running xp I'm thinking of going vista unfortunately at the moment i think vista is a bloated piece of crap. Is there a way to streamline it so that it only takes the resources of xp or 2000 also can i get vista to look and run like 2000. Is vista stable and is vista somewhat secure unlike the siv like security I'm used to having m$ put out. also how are the drivers for vista have they improved them yet?

    thank you

    medwardl
     
    medwardl, Nov 15, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. medwardl

    cyclic

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why would you consider using Vista given your attitude towards it.?

    If you want a system that looks and feels like 2000 then use 2000, if you cannot see why Vista is more secure and stable than any as yet released system, try asking for other peoples opinion who actually use it. First of all it's not 'bloated', you must have been reading too many Linux kiddies sites who knock MS whatever they do, but I have to tell you it's no longer the fashionable thing to do.

    If you truly want help and advice I suggest you change your method of approach, you wont get the best out of people in a Vista forum by starting out the way you have.

    BTW drivers have not been an issue for a long time, unless you run fairly ancient hardware in which case you wont be running a modern system anyway.
     
    cyclic, Nov 16, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. medwardl

    WAW8

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Northern Virginia, USA
    The simple fact is that each major release of any OS will take more resources than the previous version simply because more features are added each time. Vista runs more services in the background than XP, which ran more than Win2K. Vista takes more space to install than XP -- because it has more features and options that have to be loaded somewhere.



    You're NOT going to get Vista (or XP for that matter) to slim down to what Win2K used -- but there are some things you can do to reduce the footprint. One major one is to turn off services you don't use. This will reduce the number of services running, as well as the memory demands. There are a number of sites that provided recommendations for what services to disable. You can find them with Google.



    The Aero desktop also takes resources, and if you don't really need the eye candy (which, since you want it to work like Win2K, appears to be the case), you can choose Vista Basic GUI and improve the responsiveness of the system.



    There are also third party products you can install that will enable you to tune the performance of Vista in various ways. TweakVista is one that comes to mind.



    Finally, if you want Vista to look like XP or Win2K, I highly recommend the Stardock product suite, especially WindowBlinds. They have hundreds of community-provided themes; you may be able to find one that will make Vista look like Win2K.
     
    WAW8, Nov 16, 2007
    #3
  4. medwardl

    cyclic

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have never understood why anyone wants to make something look like something else, especially when they complian about resources..................so use some more in the futile effort of making it look like a different system.
     
    cyclic, Nov 16, 2007
    #4
  5. medwardl

    medwardl

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    mainly because i know where everything is with xp or 2000 and i have it set up just the way i want it. iv seen someone try to use 512 mb to run vista it didn't work at all acted like he was running a 486 PC he was using a 2.5 ghz dual core processor from what i read you need 1-2 gigs plus i would need another gig for some games but 1-2g just to run vista well without it running slow so i would need 3g but actually it would be 4 because i have to pair the ram all my other hardware is fine. then there is the price only way to go is retail iv tried upgrades iv tried OEM but in the end unless you have retail Microsoft will not help you after 2-3 months so if you have a problem like iv had you get screwed. i spent a week with xp trying to get it to work at one point. i fixed it but it was one of the most frustrating things ever and my computer came close to taking a trip out the window and vista is either 200 or 300 dollars I'm not gonna bother with bootleg i may have tried it in the past and discovered the amount of effort to remove the embedded viruses just isn't worth it. there are a few things i like about the 300 dollar version but I'm still trying to decide if I'm going to upgrade at all WAW8 has helped a bit

    "cyclic "Why would you consider using Vista given your attitude towards it.?""

    because some manufacturers who's hardware id like to use have taken it upon themselves to make it compatible with only vista unfortunately there are no substitutes.

    oh and as far as fashionable i don't think so after as many problems iv had with Microsoft's products "all of which iv had to fix myself because i didn't own retail but OEM version because i wanted to save some money" iv earned my dislike and skepticism.

    im willing to try it if im convinced that its better than o say windows me was. i just want to know if i spend 2-300 bucks on it im not gonna regret doing it and that i would be able to what i want with it also can vista run older programs without a problem there is alot of older programs from the 2000 era that i still use to this day as well as xp software that im not sure if it has vista version.
     
    medwardl, Nov 16, 2007
    #5
  6. medwardl

    cyclic

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    0
    From your reported experience with XP and 2000 I would advise any such user to stick to what they understand and appear to be happy with, the person is yet to be born who can tell you if you will like something or not after you buy it. I too am sceptical about some users, you are not aware that a see and speak to many users and their computers and experience tells me that people who decry Microsoft products especially before they even try them, are never going to be happy with it even if they give it away.

    If you decide to get Vista and need any help or assistance with it then I will be the first in line to offer you any help I can, I cannot tell you if you will be happy with it.

    As a final thought, any operating system is better than ME, even MS don't stop apologising for it, Vista is in no way comparable to ME other than it requires a computer to work on.
     
    cyclic, Nov 17, 2007
    #6
  7. medwardl

    medwardl

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    does microsoft have some kind of trial period for vista like theyve had on some of thier other operating systems?
     
    medwardl, Nov 18, 2007
    #7
  8. medwardl

    cyclic

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can install it as a trial without a key or activation for 30 days which can be extended but you still have to buy it first, under the circumstances you would think they would offer a trial for real that stopped after 30 days and couldn't become a proper copy, then would be users could try it without forking out any dosh.
     
    cyclic, Nov 18, 2007
    #8
  9. medwardl

    faust1200

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Vista does have a lot of "stuff" that I don't need/want. But so does XP. Anyway I have used this site blackviper.com for a few years. He has a list of xp and vista services which can safely be disabled. There are 3 different flavors, "safe", "tweaked", and "bare bones" I have disabled mine under the tweaked and everything runs fine. I'm not hurting for ram but I still like to run streamlined. Not to mention that "superfetch" makes your HD access almost constantly. For someone looking to trim the fat off Vista this is a pretty good and safe way.
     
    faust1200, Nov 18, 2007
    #9
  10. medwardl

    medwardl

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    ah thanks
     
    medwardl, Nov 18, 2007
    #10
  11. medwardl

    WAW8

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Northern Virginia, USA
    FYI, I don't think the "extension" hack works anymore. The original 30-day trial could previously be renewed three times, extending the "trial" to 120 days. But recent reports on another forum of people trying to do that indicate that they no longer have the needed permissions. My guess is that MS "fixed" this through a recent update.
     
    WAW8, Nov 20, 2007
    #11
  12. medwardl

    cyclic

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    0
    Still works fine on any machine I try it on ? yes they are up to date, I have seen some reports of peeps not getting it to work but they seem to be just opening a command prompt within their account, which even as admin wont work you need to be in root for it to work.
     
    cyclic, Nov 21, 2007
    #12
  13. medwardl

    Jason

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,081
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago,IL
    For what its worth the 30 day extension trick does still work, I recently did it twice on my desktop. As far as the bloating, go ahead and turn off all those services to make it "unbloated" but if you think about it, it's kinda like paying $50,000 for a car and saying you don't want the tires, doors, or engine. You paid for them you might as well use them. Now there are some unnecessary ones which can be turned off by the normal user, but it is fairly unknown how much of a performance boost you will actually receive.



    In conclusion welcome to the 21st century, RAM is the future of computing and eventually the demise of the physical hard drive, its fairly cheap and the largest performance boost per dollar.



    You can pay big bucks for the latest OS and have it run like *** on your old system, or you can throw down a little more change and get what you paid for out of the OS.



    My .02 take it or leave it



    Jason
     
    Jason, Nov 21, 2007
    #13
  14. medwardl

    medwardl

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    actualy i think a better analogy is "atleast in my case" would be wanting to buy a compact fuel effent car to replace an older dying car and to save money and instead buying a hummer h2 both working viehicles with lots of opptions but one will end up costing a whole lot more
     
    medwardl, Nov 23, 2007
    #14
  15. medwardl

    cyclic

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    0
    What you want is something that will never exist so in the mean time just buy Vista or don't it's your money, stop wasting your life prevaricating and do something.
     
    cyclic, Nov 24, 2007
    #15
  16. medwardl

    WAW8

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Depending on how "adventurous" you want to be, you have anywhere from lots of options to no real options. Regarding the first, there are versions of Linux (one known as Damn Small Linux) that have footprint measured in MBs, that run just fine on old P-IIIs with 256MB of memory or less. Additionally, according to the recently released Windows Seven video, MS is experimenting with a new architecture for the next version of Windows that hold promise for a much more compact footprint.



    Regarding the second, if you go with the current Windows OS version, there isn't a "fuel efficient" version of Vista. Apart from some minor tweaks, there's really nothing major you can do to streamline it. I've tried turning off lots of services and haven't noticed any real speed improvement. Unless you have very little RAM (< 1 GB), Ready boost doesn't really help.



    So, you can try something really different right now; or you can wait a couple of years to see how MS goes.
     
    WAW8, Nov 26, 2007
    #16
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.