James M. Fisher Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 Earlier this past week, a Pre-RC1 build of Vista was released to beta-testers. For those with access to it (and for those interested in what's new) here is a concise guide to build 5536:http://www.longhornblogs.com/chris123nt/articles/16664.aspxIMHO, this build is a good indicator of what's to come. Vista feels more like a working OS and less like a fancy video game. It installs faster than previous builds (about 20 to 25min on my laptop) and it recognized almost all of my laptop's hardware right out of the box. If I were to reinstall XP on this unit, I would spend another hour updating/installing all the drivers, I'm sure.I feel that those who were initially ambivalent about Vista (myself included) should be encouraged by this build. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mthompso Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 Earlier this past week, a Pre-RC1 build of Vista was released to beta-testers. For those with access to it (and for those interested in what's new) here is a concise guide to build 5536:http://www.longhornblogs.com/chris123nt/articles/16664.aspxIMHO, this build is a good indicator of what's to come. Vista feels more like a working OS and less like a fancy video game. It installs faster than previous builds (about 20 to 25min on my laptop) and it recognized almost all of my laptop's hardware right out of the box. If I were to reinstall XP on this unit, I would spend another hour updating/installing all the drivers, I'm sure.I feel that those who were initially ambivalent about Vista (myself included) should be encouraged by this build.I agree that it sounds like a nice OS. However, I haven't been convinced that I should shell out money to upgrade from Windows XP Professional SP2 to Windows Vista.-Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted August 27, 2006 Author Share Posted August 27, 2006 I would be the last one to recommend anyone do so *if they are satisfied with XP*. And, of course, if their present PC will not fully support Vista.It will be interesting to see how MS prices the upgrade package. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rons Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 Hello James - I'm downloading as I type. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted August 28, 2006 Author Share Posted August 28, 2006 Hello James - I'm downloading as I type. Let us know what you think, Ron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rons Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 Hello James - I'm downloading as I type. Well on my first install, I did what MS asked and did a 'upgrade' install from XP. It took 1 hr. and 5 minutes to install. The XP install was also a clean install slipstreamed with Sp2. The only other software installed was AVG, EWIDO and a software program for my D-Link wireless network card, none of which functioned after the upgrade.Also surprising was that I had no sound from the built-in AC97 Via sound chip with Vista, which has worked perfectly since the 'beta' was in knickers. So I did a reformat - clean install. Likewise, this install went clean and quick. About 25 minutes. Hmmm.....still no sound. It is seeing my sound as 2 speakers. In previous versions it saw it as 5.1 - 5 speakers which is correct. Outside of that, it is fine. Gotta load on some software and test it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted August 28, 2006 Author Share Posted August 28, 2006 james, fascinating."Vista feels more like a working OS and less like a fancy video game." so... does that mean a lot of those, 'you have pressed the letter "a" on your keyboard, did your really want to do that?', and 'are you sure?' messages are gone?and vista installs faster than xp? cool!Yes, UAP is less intrusive by far from previous builds. I mostly encounter those prompts when installing programs or accessing system settings, like running msconfig or Device Manager, for instance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 There was a public download available this morning. Closed after the first 100,000 copies were downloaded. No product key offered as the real RC1 is scheduled for next Tuesday.I'm going to load it later today and observe what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted August 29, 2006 Author Share Posted August 29, 2006 The offer is still open from what I can tell. 4:53PM ESThttp://download.windowsvista.com/preview/p...n/download.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teacher Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 I just started downloading then decided it was too large of a file ot mess with. Especially since I would have to put it on a junk computer. (not one of my regular ones). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henderrob Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 I installed it on a 35GB partition. Installed fine and detected sound. Iused a 7.5GB before and things didn't run well. It didn't pick up my ATI Theatre 550, which I sort of expected, but it does play the audio.Overall, I like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Installed Vista 5536 twice this morning. It still chokes on my Saphire ATI X1600 Pro VC. Vista can't figure out what it is and reports only 32 MBs of video RAM. Hard to believe for a card packing 512MBs of RAM!Other than that, installed in 25 minutes with an older nVidia VC. Found everything including RAID controllers.Much snappier than beta2 and later builds.Has anyone noticed the "Extend" tool in the Advanced setup tools? I'm assuming it is for extending partitions where there is unallocated space available. I have not tried it yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted August 30, 2006 Author Share Posted August 30, 2006 I noticed the "Extend", but did not investigate it. Odd that Vista has problems with the Sapphire card. My former desktop had a Sapphire X1600 Pro AGP 256MB and all the Beta 2 builds handled it nicely, right OOTB. Reported the correct onboard RAM too. I didn't even bother with ATi's beta drivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 It ran under beta 2 but Vista had no idea what it was or how much memory it had onboard. I'm thinking now bad VC... I've only had it 6 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 I was checking out the Sapphire website and they're offering a VC bios update for the X1600 Pro dated Aug. 2nd, 2006. I'm going to try that before warranty repair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 Hope that works for you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 I tried to install it and I kept getting an error stating that Vista cannot tell if your PC can run Vista(or something close to that). I found this strange as I am running Beta 2 build 5384 without any problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henderrob Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) Installed Vista 5536 twice this morning. It still chokes on my Saphire ATI X1600 Pro VC. Vista can't figure out what it is and reports only 32 MBs of video RAM. Hard to believe for a card packing 512MBs of RAM! I have a Sapphire 256MB ATI 1600 Pro. It works fine for me. Maybe the difference is the 512MB is confusing the included Vista drivers.ATI has a beta Vista catalyst package but I haven't tried it yet Edited August 31, 2006 by henderrob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 I tried to install it and I kept getting an error stating that Vista cannot tell if your PC can run Vista(or something close to that). I found this strange as I am running Beta 2 build 5384 without any problems. Are you trying to upgrade the current Vista installation, or is this a clean install, Gary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Are you trying to upgrade the current Vista installation, or is this a clean install, Gary?I finnaly got it to install But it it is telling me that Avast is not comaptable with this build. It works fine in Beta 2? Any suggestions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 I'm currently using Trend's PC-cillin Internet Security suite, which runs fine on Vista 5536.https://www.trendbeta.com/index.php?get=80(you don't need to install the entire suite; you are given the option of just installing the basic AV and using Vista's firewall) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 I'm currently using Trend's PC-cillin Internet Security suite, which runs fine on Vista 5536.https://www.trendbeta.com/index.php?get=80(you don't need to install the entire suite; you are given the option of just installing the basic AV and using Vista's firewall)Thanks James. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 YW, Gary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 It seems to be uses one heck of alot of resources. CPU usage is constant at about 42% where in Beta 2 it was minimal, around 1-2 %. This is at idle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted September 1, 2006 Author Share Posted September 1, 2006 I'm not seeing that here, Gary.However, that could be Vista's search service indexing your drive? Possibly Disk Defragmenter running; it's turned on by default to run at a scheduled time.Can you tell what's running by using Task Manager? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 I'm not seeing that here, Gary.However, that could be Vista's search sevice indexing your drive? Possibly Disk Defragmenter running; it's turned on by default to run at a scheduled time.Can you tell what's running by using Task Manager?Yes I am thinking that is what it is. If I remember right 5384 settled down after a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teacher Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 It seems to be uses one heck of alot of resources. CPU usage is constant at about 42% where in Beta 2 it was minimal, around 1-2 %. This is at idle. Mine did that in Beta 2. That is why I decided not to go with Vista. It was a constant thing and not just at a scheduled time. Once in a while it would drop down but it was pretty constant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted September 1, 2006 Author Share Posted September 1, 2006 There was a known bug in one of the B2 builds that caused this. I too could not use that build since my entire system was bogged down. This latest build zips right along with CPU usage at 01 to 03%, mostly due to the sidebar gadgets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Well right now my CPU usage is at 86% . If this does not settle down , I will have to get rid of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 At 86% you have issues. What does the performance monitors suggest? I'ts very easy to figure out what is going wrong. 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.