[NiceCans]

I recently had a warranty issue with my laptop and received an 'upgrade' in the process. Much to my disappointment, the new laptop is a Windows Vista machine.

Now this may not sound too bad to some, but I had gone to great lengths specifically to purchase a Windows XP machine (to the extent that I got a refurb as there were no new laptops available that did not have Vista).

Upon attempting to instal Windows XP on the new laptop I was dismayed to find that since the hard drive is SATA you must install additional drivers during the install for Windows to "see" the hard drive.
My copy seeks these drivers on the Floppy Drive and will not look elsewhere. Of course newer machines are not floppy drive equipped.

SO, my questions:

1- As a power user I am really leary of Vista being a drain on resources as well as too restrictive.
Is Vista as bad as it appears regarding resource use and overhead? Or am I blowing it out of proportion?

2- Is Vista able to be made to run more like XP (without all the "overhead" and garbage that has been included)? I did turn off the security junk I could find the switch for.
Perhaps someone knows of a site showing how to tweak it?

3- How can I get the SATA drivers to load during the XP install?
Are the newer versions of XP modified not to need a floppy for install? Perhaps drivers are included?

 

[darkninja67]

I love Vista so far. 2 builds (Ultimate and Home Premium). The big thing with Vista is turning off UAC as it is a pain in the ass.
Vista seems to like a lot of RAM to start off with. I have found Vista to be extremely stable, fast and easy to navigate.

As for SATA drivers: Do you have access to a USB drive? Thinking you can somehow get drivers on that way.

 

[nibiyabi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NiceCans /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1- As a power user I am really leary of Vista being a drain on resources as well as too restrictive. Is Vista as bad as it appears regarding resource use and overhead? Or am I blowing it out of proportion?

Vista is really only a hog if you run Aero. If you're worried about system resource drain, disable it. Still, it's more of a hog than XP even without Aero, so if your specs aren't too hot (1G or less RAM, 2.0GHz or less processor, etc.), you may have some trouble. Microsoft's barometers for Vista, "Vista Capable" and "Vista Ready", should be "Vista Impossible" and "Vista Kinda", respectively.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NiceCans /img/forum/go_quote.gif 2- Is Vista able to be made to run more like XP (without all the "overhead" and garbage that has been included)? I did turn off the security junk I could find the switch for. Perhaps someone knows of a site showing how to tweak it?

Not really sure. I've only had my new computer for about a week and I still spend most of my time on these ****** Dells running XP at work. I'm sure there are options to remove the sidebar et al and make it more XP-like, much like XP had options to make it more W98-like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NiceCans /img/forum/go_quote.gif 3- How can I get the SATA drivers to load during the XP install? Are the newer versions of XP modified not to need a floppy for install? Perhaps drivers are included?

Not a flippin' clue with anything here. Too advanced for me.

I'll let the other members have a crack at this one.

 

[marvin]

Vista is livable once UAC is turned off, but then again, I'm working off of a dual core A64 w/ 2 gigs of ram. Your mileage may vary.

As for installing XP SATA drivers without a floppy, you need to make a slipstreamed copy of XP.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/How...P-installation

 

[epaludo]

I started to use Vista about 2-3 months ago and had no problems so far. Of course the game ability is lower than under the previous XP, but for the games i play (almost never play actually) Vista is more than good.
Of course i have a lot of ram (2.5G), so it helps making everything runs smoothly ...

 

[Cousin Patty]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Vista is livable once UAC is turned off, but then again, I'm working off of a dual core A64 w/ 2 gigs of ram. Your mileage may vary. As for installing XP SATA drivers without a floppy, you need to make a slipstreamed copy of XP. http://www.maximumpc.com/article/How...P-installation

This is the way to do it if you dont have a floppy drive to load the SATA drivers. But it gets pretty advanced later in the guide. If it were me, I probably wouldnt mess with it. If you've got a decent machine I would probably just go over to Vista. Especially if you arent going to be gaming or anything.

What are the specs on your laptop?

 

[vagarach]

Oh yes, installing XP SP1 on a machine with a SATA hd is great fun! As mentioned, the key is to slipstream a sp1 installation cd by running the sp2 update with some commandline arguments and then burning the result (along with a special file) onto the cd.

I find Paul Thurrott's guide to be straight-foward and clearer than the mpc one, which doesn't actually tell you how to slipstream all of sp2 into the installation files.
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...slipstream.asp.

Quote:

This is the way to do it if you dont have a floppy drive to load the SATA drivers. But it gets pretty advanced later in the guide. If it were me, I probably wouldnt mess with it.

I wouldn't worry the slightest about messing with things or corrupting this, or that, or whatever. It (slipstreaming) will either work, or it will not, and if it does, then you should have no further problems installing xp!

I used Paul's guide just a short while back to install xp on a brand new vista machine with SATA, since the accounting software won't run in vista.

 

[NiceCans]

Hi, and thanks for all the feedback anad input.

The Laptop is equiped as follows:
Intel Dual-Core 1.6GB / 1B L2 Cache
1024GB DDR2
100GB SATA hard drive
DVD +/- RW

Not a powerhouse, but then again if I loaded W2K into it I am certain it would scream. But I expect XP would be an easier trick as it is more recent and likely has better compatability with the hardare.

I usually go through my W2K and XP installs and tweak out all the resource hogs in the interest of power and speed. Of course being new to Vista I am unfamiliar with what I can and can't get away with.

I spoke to Gateway again today and there is no way they can provid man XP disc for this machine, and they "will not support" any other install than the OEM.
As a result of this info, I will live with Vista at least for the duration of the warranty (90 days) and see. After that I may (or may not) attempt to swap the OS to my liking.

"Slipstream" huh? I guess I have some studying to do

p.s. - I remember a tweaking site where the guy listed all the Windows services that could be turned off and such for W2k and also for XP. DOes anyone know of one for Vista?

How about a "Slipstream Service" where I can buy a WinXP disc setup to my liking??

 

[macky]

First off, Vista is actually quite nice in my opinion. The interface is very easy and quick to learn and as for "zomg it hogs resources", that does have a purpose as prefetching is a wonderful thing once the OS learns what applications you use regularly. Also, I dont think I could go back to not having per-application volume control, especially for my web browser.

As for running Vista "like xp". Set the interface to windows classic and turn off UAC (very very easy). Odds are you wont notice or care about the difference.

If you have to "attempt" to like something then you aren't going to like it. The key to it is to go in open minded without preconcieved notions or whatnot.

For slipstreaming, you guys do everything the hard way. Download and install nLite and you have an easy graphical interface to add or remove basically anything from your windows installer.

All the Vista hate I see around the internet is really disturbing, 95% (Remember kids, percentages are always true and never made up or estimated) of it is from people who have never even attempted to use it.

 

[saturnine]

Vista is nice, but you will need more than 1gb to fully appreciate it.

BTW, do it the easy way. Install SATA drivers via external USB floppy

 

[magnetic]

I agree with macky, Vista may use a bit more ram, but it makes much better use of resources. For a simple example, even though I had 2GB of ram, when I would turn on my XP and try to launch a browser I'd have to sit there and wait until all the startup programs were loaded. With Vista it gives Firefox priority, launches it right away and then while I am browsing it's loading the startup apps in the background.

For a lot more about this check out: http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917

That said I have had a lot of problems with security on Vista. A few things are really annoying. Protection of the operating system files for one. You can get rid of this in the permission settings of a file, but it won't let me do the whole windows folder at once. Then to do a few things you have to have UAC off, for a few things it has to be on! And I have had problems registering dlls. I've even had a blue screen of death. So there are definitely problems, but right now for me the good features outweigh the bad.

Also no drivers for m-audio 2496

 

[Wodgy]

You'll want to upgrade to 2GB of RAM if you stay with Vista. Running Vista with 1GB of RAM is like running XP with 128MB of RAM. It works but it isn't great.

 

[TheMarchingMule]

Yeah, I ran Vista with 1GB of RAM and 66% of it was used just when sitting idle.

Anyway, unless you are a gamer, Vista does do the trick. If anything, if possible one should partition their drive, giving Vista 1/4 of the space. I'd use Vista for work and projects, and XP for games, music, etc.

 

[Gautama]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NiceCans /img/forum/go_quote.gif I recently had a warranty issue with my laptop and received an 'upgrade' in the process. Much to my disappointment, the new laptop is a Windows Vista machine. Now this may not sound too bad to some, but I had gone to great lengths specifically to purchase a Windows XP machine (to the extent that I got a refurb as there were no new laptops available that did not have Vista). Upon attempting to instal Windows XP on the new laptop I was dismayed to find that since the hard drive is SATA you must install additional drivers during the install for Windows to "see" the hard drive. My copy seeks these drivers on the Floppy Drive and will not look elsewhere. Of course newer machines are not floppy drive equipped. SO, my questions: 1- As a power user I am really leary of Vista being a drain on resources as well as too restrictive. Is Vista as bad as it appears regarding resource use and overhead? Or am I blowing it out of proportion? 2- Is Vista able to be made to run more like XP (without all the "overhead" and garbage that has been included)? I did turn off the security junk I could find the switch for. Perhaps someone knows of a site showing how to tweak it? 3- How can I get the SATA drivers to load during the XP install? Are the newer versions of XP modified not to need a floppy for install? Perhaps drivers are included?

Vista is not as much of a resource hog as it seems, compared to XP it uses about 100-150mb to run it. The other estimates are thrown off because Vista preloads as much as it can into the ram, as unused ram is wasted ram. It is not bogged down compared to XP.

 

[Lazarus Short]

The thread title reminded me of an oxymoron I came up with this morning:

Starting Windows

It was right there on my computer screen, as the computer WOULD NOT START. After a few minutes, I called the IT guy over...

Laz