My journey into Vista...

Zygarth · January 30, 2007, 01:21:23 PM

I was just starting to like XP

sneef · January 30, 2007, 02:13:55 PM

Quote from: "Gleasonator"Oh wait I think I just answered my own question...

http://www.emulator-zone.com/doc.php/computer/pearpc.html

nope, that's not the best answer to your question.

I'm using OSX86, a hacked version of OSX for developers to use on intel platforms.

there are now hacked kernels that work with AMD also.

(sorry for the off-topic post, just answering gleasonator)

with OSX86 on my hackintosh box (core2duo e6300) I easily beat the xbench scores of the Dual-2GHz G5 Powermac that I use at the office.

rocky · January 30, 2007, 05:24:22 PM

I am thinking of buying this today but I have at least 3 computers I want it on. So is there any version that is for businesses that you get like 5 keys with it? I think they had one for XP. Also is it worth it to get the better versions of it?

Gleasonator · January 30, 2007, 06:02:01 PM

Thanks for the answer, Sneef.

(On their site now)

So... apparently Vista went out for download yesterday? Ultimate is $250... *checks wallet* $160... *checks torrent sites* Free.... meh. I don't feel like messing with Microsoft. :lol:

Woaz... so THIS CHART... "clean installation" means you have to format the drive and "in-place" means that it will just overwrite the OS (keeping all your stuff)? That's new.

EDIT:

Quote from: "http://www.windowsmarketplace.com/content.aspx?ctId=395&tabid=1"

3) What is the difference between a clean installation and an in-place upgrade?
An upgrade in-place means you can install Windows Vista and keep your programs, files, and settings from your current version of Windows.

A clean installation means your current version of Windows, including all of your files, settings, and programs, is automatically replaced. You can back up your files and settings, but must manually reinstall your programs when the installation is done.

THIS time I answered my own question.

Kenzya · January 30, 2007, 07:28:52 PM

They've had that before with XP. But it's ALWAYS RECOMMENDED to do a clean install.

sonicwind · January 30, 2007, 08:08:27 PM

never repair I did and i mest up all the settings on my computer so i ended up doing a clean install.

AnalogMan · January 31, 2007, 07:19:31 AM

I use the Ultimate edition of Vista, but the Home Basic require a 1GHz, 512MB RAM, 64MB Video machine. I have a 3GHZ, 512MB RAM, and 64MB Video machine and it cuts my Ultimate addition down to meet my hardware limitations and runs just as well as Home Basic.

Sneef, I'm jealous. I always wanted to try installing OSX86, but I heard it's rather picky about your hardware (heard it needs to be close to what the Intel macs have) and I'm too lazy waste time downloading it and to partition my disk and see if it actually works.

If you partition your HDD into two drives, install XP on one, then run the Vista installer INSIDE of XP, choosing the other partition to install to, it goes very smoothly and requires hardly any input besides CD-Key and time zone. Reboots all by itself and everything. In fact, you don't even need a real disk, I mounted an image of the Vista DVD (don't have a DVD Burner) and installed it right from XP without ever needing the real disk.

darkuni · January 31, 2007, 10:05:39 AM

Just so you know ... Vista likes to lock out the administrator user - so if you use administrator for your XP login (which I do), you'll want to transfer ALL your administrator crap (application data, desktop, my documents, etc) to the other admin user on your system BEFORE you do the upgrade.

Save yourself the time I lost

zektor · January 31, 2007, 10:20:43 AM

Well, after a few days of use, I am having a slight problem (I knew it would happen):

I have a second partition where I store all of my games (emulation, apps..etc). I tried to rename a certain folder last night and the machine will not let me do it, no matter what. I tried configuring every type of security access control you can think of, AND I am logged on as Admin. Then, there are other folders that I *can* rename just fine. Not sure what that is all about. Looks like I may have to completely disable UAC.

darkuni · January 31, 2007, 12:51:51 PM

You haven't disabled UAC yet? Damn, that was the first to go!

Are you logged in as the ACTUAL administrator or just a USER belonging to admin group? One of the reasons I ALWAYS log into my home machines as administrator is for this very reason ... despite being in the admin group, other users just don't have 100% of the rights as the actual "administrator" account does.

I'm having trouble figuring out how to get into Vista as the ACTUAL Administrator. Of course, I did an upgrade over XP (this time - if I like Vista and keep it, I'll go for the clean install next time).

AnalogMan · January 31, 2007, 02:44:22 PM

I turned UAC off immediately. It gets really annoying once you hit a program you use all the time, and it asks you 'are you sure?' every time. There doesn't seem to be a whitelist to shut it up or anything (thunderbird portable).

As for TRUE admin on Vista.... http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9001970
The jist of it is you need to un-disable it, then disable all other admin accounts on the system BUT that one. Very annoying.

Finally, if you used a Upgrade DVD, there's a way to do a fresh install with it. First you boot up with the upgrade disk, choose to install the version of Vista Upgrade you bought, DON'T enter a CD-Key, and when you get to the desktop, run the Vista installation IN Vista and install over Vista. Put the CD-Key in this time. Then, you can activate it with no problems, just be sure to delete the windows.old folder. And with that, any Vista Upgrade DVD has just become the full retail version.

falseadress · February 18, 2007, 12:27:15 AM

Quote from: "AnalogMan"I use the Ultimate edition of Vista, but the Home Basic require a 1GHz, 512MB RAM, 64MB Video machine. I have a 3GHZ, 512MB RAM, and 64MB Video machine and it cuts my Ultimate addition down to meet my hardware limitations and runs just as well as Home Basic.

Sneef, I'm jealous. I always wanted to try installing OSX86, but I heard it's rather picky about your hardware (heard it needs to be close to what the Intel macs have) and I'm too lazy waste time downloading it and to partition my disk and see if it actually works.

If you partition your HDD into two drives, install XP on one, then run the Vista installer INSIDE of XP, choosing the other partition to install to, it goes very smoothly and requires hardly any input besides CD-Key and time zone. Reboots all by itself and everything. In fact, you don't even need a real disk, I mounted an image of the Vista DVD (don't have a DVD Burner) and installed it right from XP without ever needing the real disk.

hey who said that installing osx86 was hard.
it only took me 2 days to download the file 10 min to burn the cd , and 1 h to install the computer.
i have a AMD system. its really easy. The motherboard isn't eveen close to what the Intel macs have

Ppl have found a way to get vista half price.

Gleasonator · February 18, 2007, 12:35:24 AM

I'm not gonna buy Vista 'till they come out with an update. Too many bugs... most of my software is incomplatable and a little of my hardware. :\

Hi · February 18, 2007, 05:46:43 PM

vista is begginning to sound like the scdsone. Here is how.

I've always said that supercard is to windows as m3 is to macontosh. The m3 is more expensive but has a better gui, is easier to use ect. while the supercard is cheep, harder to use and has near no gui.

Now, scdsone is like windows vista. The supercard team has come out with a card that has a nice gui and is easy to use. They are getting closer to the m3 adapter, (the slot 2 adapter, NOT the m3 simply.) however, at first the card had some bugs. (the bugs are pretty much fixed now.). Anyone see how this is like windows vista.

Now if windows vista follows the path of the scdsone, the bugs will be gone in no time

But if macontosh follows the path of the m3 simply (which was realised after the scdsone, so it would stand to reason that macontosh's thing hasn't been realised yet) we'll be seeing a very cheep macontosh operating system very soon that might steel the spotlight from microsoft...

I wonder if the future is that predictable...

edit: AND you can even do a dualboot between the scdsone and the slot-2 supercard. You just use mk4/the built in superkey. I like anolagies.

Gleasonator · February 18, 2007, 07:29:33 PM

Quote from: "Hi"vista is begginning to sound like the scdsone. Here is how.

I've always said that supercard is to windows as m3 is to macontosh. The m3 is more expensive but has a better gui, is easier to use ect. while the supercard is cheep, harder to use and has near no gui.

Now, scdsone is like windows vista. The supercard team has come out with a card that has a nice gui and is easy to use. They are getting closer to the m3 adapter, (the slot 2 adapter, NOT the m3 simply.) however, at first the card had some bugs. (the bugs are pretty much fixed now.). Anyone see how this is like windows vista.

Now if windows vista follows the path of the scdsone, the bugs will be gone in no time

But if macontosh follows the path of the m3 simply (which was realised after the scdsone, so it would stand to reason that macontosh's thing hasn't been realised yet) we'll be seeing a very cheep macontosh operating system very soon that might steel the spotlight from microsoft...

I wonder if the future is that predictable...

edit: AND you can even do a dualboot between the scdsone and the slot-2 supercard. You just use mk4/the built in superkey. I like anolagies.

Wow. Good observation. O.o