Vista Support

salmo said:
Believe me I've found that out the hard way, but in truth I've had relatively few problems and only 2 that have not yet been resolved; Quickbooks and the E220. Everything else has worked fine and for the most part I'm really enjoying Vista.

Thanks for all the help and my apologies for stepping on anyones toes, I'll try the fix as described and give my feedback.
Click to expand...

Hope you get your Quickbooks running .. what you could do as a short term solution is load Virtual PC 2007 (Beta) under Vista. Then create yourself a virtual machine loaded with XP. You can then load Quickbooks onto that Virtual Machine and run it from within Vista. Works perfectly.

I have tested Virtual PC 2007 and it works just great on Vista and is free software. Try it out.

Glad you are enjoying Vista, I really like it, its snappy and outperforms XP on my particular laptop. I know this because it came loaded with XP and once I had loaded Vista the speed differences were remarkable.

Hope you get the E220 sorted out.
 
I'm running dual-boot with XP and Vista and sometimes have to switch back to XP to use a specific app. Vendor only promised an update in April....:mad:

So I understand your frustration, but we are in early days. But some of us (I'm the worst) like to live on the bleeding-edge..:rolleyes:
 
threegee said:
Hope you get your Quickbooks running .. what you could do as a short term solution is load Virtual PC 2007 (Beta) under Vista. Then create yourself a virtual machine loaded with XP. You can then load Quickbooks onto that Virtual Machine and run it from within Vista. Works perfectly.
Click to expand...

Currently I have Quickbooks on a PC and access it via Remote Desktop which works ok but thanks for the suggestion, I'm going to give it a go.
 
Well that wasn't a huge success, I can't even get to the stage of implementing VC3G's fix.

I've downloaded the file, extracted it into a folder called "vodacom" on my c drive and when I try to run the setup program (setup_vmc) it gets to a point where it asks me for the service provider and of course I select Vodacom from the list. At this stage installation comes to a halt with the message "The wizard was interrupted before Vodafone Mobile Connect could be completely installed. Your system has not been modified. To complete installation at another time please run installation again.".

Am I missing something?
 
threegee said:
Hope you get your Quickbooks running .. what you could do as a short term solution is load Virtual PC 2007 (Beta) under Vista. Then create yourself a virtual machine loaded with XP. You can then load Quickbooks onto that Virtual Machine and run it from within Vista. Works perfectly.

I have tested Virtual PC 2007 and it works just great on Vista and is free software. Try it out.

Glad you are enjoying Vista, I really like it, its snappy and outperforms XP on my particular laptop. I know this because it came loaded with XP and once I had loaded Vista the speed differences were remarkable.

Hope you get the E220 sorted out.
Click to expand...

You find it snappier? My Vista installation is more sluggish than XP. I've upgraded the display card as well.

Java especially is extremely slow, basically unusable....
 
salmo said:
Well that wasn't a huge success, I can't even get to the stage of implementing VC3G's fix.

I've downloaded the file, extracted it into a folder called "vodacom" on my c drive and when I try to run the setup program (setup_vmc) it gets to a point where it asks me for the service provider and of course I select Vodacom from the list. At this stage installation comes to a halt with the message "The wizard was interrupted before Vodafone Mobile Connect could be completely installed. Your system has not been modified. To complete installation at another time please run installation again.".

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Please somebody help, where to now?
 
Hi V3G, Indeed I find Vista to be at least 50% faster than XP on my laptop.

As I say ... this is just what I experienced and my laptop was officially Vista compatible. I cannot speak for Java but I will check it out and see if I have similar sluggish problems with Java. I guess not everyone has had successes with Vista.

I am going to be loading it soon onto my desktop which is slightly older hardware and then I will see how she performs. I do however run a minimum of 2GB Ram on all my machines which with Vista seems to make a huge difference.

Also, there are a number of services on vista that you should stop and disable, they are not needed and they cause the basic install of Vista to be sluggish and to thrash the harddrive a lot. I can email you that list of services or post here if you like?

Cheers
 
threegee said:
Hi V3G, Indeed I find Vista to be at least 50% faster than XP on my laptop.

As I say ... this is just what I experienced and my laptop was officially Vista compatible. I cannot speak for Java but I will check it out and see if I have similar sluggish problems with Java. I guess not everyone has had successes with Vista.

I am going to be loading it soon onto my desktop which is slightly older hardware and then I will see how she performs. I do however run a minimum of 2GB Ram on all my machines which with Vista seems to make a huge difference.

Also, there are a number of services on vista that you should stop and disable, they are not needed and they cause the basic install of Vista to be sluggish and to thrash the harddrive a lot. I can email you that list of services or post here if you like?

Cheers
Click to expand...

I think if you post here, you'll be a hero.
 
I experienced a huge improvement in performance after I increased my RAM from 1 to 2GB. I'm also eagerly awaiting the list of services that could be disabled.
 
Okay here goes:

Definitely I would suggest:
- turning off UAC (User Account Control) - This is accessed under Control Panel > Users and Accounts.

- stop and disable the following services:
(unless you specifically use any of them)

For those who are unsure, you access these services by going to Control Panel > Administrative Tools > Services. Double-Click on a service, Click Stop and then set the startup type to "disabled". Once you have gone through them all do a reboot. Windows Security Centre will complain about Windows Defender not being loaded, just ignore it. But PLEASE make sure you have loaded a decent antivirus before you disable Windows Defender.

- DHCP
- DFS Replication
- Diagnostic Policy Service
- Diagnostic Service Host
- Diagnostic System Host
- Distributed Link Tracking Client
- DNS Client
- Internet Connection Sharing
- IP Helper
- Offline Files
- Parental Controls
- Remote Registry
- Routing and Remote Access
- Security Center
- Smart Card
- Superfetch (This is the real bugger that causes all the disk thrashing and memory usage)
- Tablet PC Input Service
- Windows Defender (Get yourself ESET NOD32 and be done with it - Fully supported under Vista)
- Windows Error Reporting Service
- Windows Media Centre Extender Service
- Windows Search

Some may question why DNS client is disabled. It's actually not needed, your machine will still do DNS lookups it just will not cache them.

Hope this helps some of you :)
Cheers
 
Just got off the plane from JHb, reading PC World.

In tests they did Vista ran anything between 15% and 50% slower than XP, even with 1GB of RAM. This is on 'normal' (non-core CPU's). So I think this is what I'm seeing with my 3GHz P4.

On dual-core CPU's it actually ran faster. Probably what you're seeing?

64bit ran slower than 32bit till they bumped the RAM up to 2GB. Upgrading 32bit to 2GB made no difference.

Always nice to find a good excuse to buy new hardware. Tomorrow I'm going shopping.

Any suggestions? (I'm partial to Gigabyte Motherboards...)

Graphics card?
 
vodacom3g said:
Always nice to find a good excuse to buy new hardware. Tomorrow I'm going shopping.

Any suggestions? (I'm partial to Gigabyte Motherboards...)

Graphics card?
Click to expand...

I just ordered a DFI CFX3200-DR mobo (Going to give the ATi CrossFire Xpress 3200 chipset a try. :D ). I will order my Opteron 185 tomorrow.
 
You people have too much money... :D

Gigabyte is very good... from graphics card, can't go wrong with a 7800GT... or even a 7600... still very very good and somewhat reasonable in price nowadays...

Ideally, myself, I'd order a Dell Precision 390... but I'm just lazy.. :)
 
vodacom3g said:
Just got off the plane from JHb, reading PC World.

In tests they did Vista ran anything between 15% and 50% slower than XP, even with 1GB of RAM. This is on 'normal' (non-core CPU's). So I think this is what I'm seeing with my 3GHz P4.

On dual-core CPU's it actually ran faster. Probably what you're seeing?

64bit ran slower than 32bit till they bumped the RAM up to 2GB. Upgrading 32bit to 2GB made no difference.

Always nice to find a good excuse to buy new hardware. Tomorrow I'm going shopping.

Any suggestions? (I'm partial to Gigabyte Motherboards...)

Graphics card?
Click to expand...

Yes I do have a Core-2 Duo Processor. I will see how she performs on my older desktop which is not a Core processor.
I am also partial to Gigabyte boards, they do work well but they do not come close to using a Genuine Intel Motherboard.

Happy Shopping !!!!
 
threegee said:
Yes I do have a Core-2 Duo Processor. I will see how she performs on my older desktop which is not a Core processor.
I am also partial to Gigabyte boards, they do work well but they do not come close to using a Genuine Intel Motherboard.

Happy Shopping !!!!
Click to expand...

It's funny how brand loyalty works. I bought a gigabyte mb years ago and have been buying them ever since, probably about 20 by now. No reason why I should not look at others, but you just go back to what you know....
 
vodacom3g said:
It's funny how brand loyalty works. I bought a gigabyte mb years ago and have been buying them ever since, probably about 20 by now. No reason why I should not look at others, but you just go back to what you know....
Click to expand...

Oh I have used them all, I have sold hundreds of Gigabyte boards over the years including for my own machines. Also sold many Asus boards too. But when it came to serious workhorses (servers particularly) I always found that genuine Intel processors installed on Genuine Intel Motherboards just worked so absolutely flawlessly and were the most stable systems I ever built, many over 9 years old and still in full operation.

My own desktop is still a Gigabyte board and lord knows whats inside my laptop, they both work great.
 
threegee said:
Oh I have used them all, I have sold hundreds of Gigabyte boards over the years including for my own machines. Also sold many Asus boards too. But when it came to serious workhorses (servers particularly) I always found that genuine Intel processors installed on Genuine Intel Motherboards just worked so absolutely flawlessly and were the most stable systems I ever built, many over 9 years old and still in full operation.

My own desktop is still a Gigabyte board and lord knows whats inside my laptop, they both work great.
Click to expand...

Cool, so which one should I go for?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X